Dmitriy Tishyevich focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation in federal and state courts. He has a particular emphasis on healthcare litigation, and has extensive experience representing clients in lawsuits and arbitrations involving claims payment, provider contracting, and ERISA and Sherman Act issues that arise in disputes between payors and healthcare providers. His other work includes antitrust, business tort matters, contract disputes, and product liability. In addition to healthcare work, Dmitriy also regularly represents clients in the pharmaceutical and private equity industries, among others.
Dmitriy also maintains an active pro bono practice, with a particular focus on LGBTQ issues. He acted as trial and appellate counsel for same-sex Indiana couples seeking the right to marry, with the district court finding the Indiana marriage ban unconstitutional, and with the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirming on appeal. Baskin v. Bogan (S.D. Ind., 7th Cir.). He has also acted as pro bono counsel for a number of LGBTQ clients applying for asylum in the United States based on fear of persecution in their home country.
Representing a leading health insurer in ERISA cases brought by providers who allege that the insurer improperly calculated the reimbursement of certain out-of-network claims*
Represented a leading health insurer in a long-running ERISA case in which a provider alleged that the insurer improperly calculated the reimbursement of certain out-of-network claims; defeated all of provider’s claims following a bench trial; appeal currently pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals*
Represented a leading health insurer in several antitrust cases alleging that client conspired with other health insurers to drive certain healthcare providers from the market; defeated providers’ claims on summary judgment and on a motion to dismiss*
Represented a leading health insurer in three separate arbitrations brought by physician groups who challenged their termination from the insurer’s network of healthcare professionals. Won all three arbitrations following a series of evidentiary hearings*
Represented a leading manufacturer of generic drugs in two nationwide antitrust class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Lamictal® (lamotrigine) and of the drug Niaspan® (niacin), where the purchasers challenged the so-called “reverse payment” settlement of Hatch-Waxman patent litigation*
Represented a leading manufacturer of generic drugs in a nationwide class action brought by consumers who alleged that they bought atorvastatin (generic version of Lipitor®) that may have contained glass particles; defeated plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. ( Law360’s Weekly Verdict, November 15, 2018.) *
Defended a leading manufacturer of brand-name drugs in a series of product liability actions that alleged various injuries resulting from the prescription drug Humira, at both trial and appellate level in federal and state courts around the country*
Defended a major social media network in a federal antitrust lawsuit alleging illegal tying, group boycott, and monopolization of social media advertising. Defeated the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, and won a motion to dismiss all claims*
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.