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. He has first-chaired two multi-week arbitration hearings, and has also second-chaired multiple federal trials and arbitrations. 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 trial counsel for transgender persons in North Carolina who challenged their state health’s plan exclusion of coverage for gender dysphoria treatment, with the district court finding that the exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause. Kadel v. Folwell (M.D.N.C.) In addition, he has 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.
Represented a healthcare insurance company in multiple arbitrations filed by one of the largest for-profit hospital systems that alleged that insurer underpaid its contracted healthcare claims. First-chaired three multi-week arbitrations hearings and achieved a complete defense victory in the only arbitration to reach a judgment; leveraged favorable results to drive a global resolution.
Represented a healthcare insurance company in a putative class action brought by substance abuse treatment facilities challenging the company’s reimbursement of out-of-network claims based on pricing supplied by a third-party vendor, including under antitrust and RICO theories. Successfully moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, including the antitrust claims with prejudice. Instead of amending their complaint, the facilities voluntarily dismissed.
Represented a health insurance company against a group of hospitals claiming over ten million dollars in underpayments for emergency services under Florida statutory and common law. After significantly narrowing claims through Rule 12 motions, achieved a complete defense victory at summary judgment.
Representing a health insurance company in ERISA cases brought by providers who allege that the insurer improperly calculated the reimbursement of certain out-of-network claims.
Represented a health insurance company against a hospital claiming tens of millions of dollars in underpayments under ERISA, RICO, and common-law theories. After a two-week trial, district court ruled completely in the client’s favor, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.*
Represented a leading meal kit company in a multi-million dollar contract dispute with one of its suppliers. After a week-long arbitration hearing, achieved a complete defense victory, and also obtained a six-figure judgment on the company’s counterclaims against the supplier.*
Represented a health insurance company 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 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.)*
Represented a leading manufacturer of generic drugs in two nationwide antitrust class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of the drugs Lamictal® (lamotrigine) and Niaspan® (niacin), where the purchasers challenged the so-called “reverse payment” settlement of Hatch-Waxman patent litigation.*
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.