• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

  • Home
  • Legal Services
        • Banking & Finance Law
        • Business & Corporate Law
        • Criminal Defense
        • Employment Law
        • Estates & Trusts Law
        • Family Law
        • Litigation Law
        • Mediation and Arbitration
        • Personal Injury Law
        • Real Estate & Land Use Law
        • Tax Law
  • Our Team
        • Joseph A. Bellinghieri
        • Hiruy Y. Berhane
        • Patrick J. Boyer
        • Krzysztof M. Bozentka
        • Jeffrey P. Burke
        • Robert A. Burke
        • Matthew C. Cooper
        • John C. Cronin
        • Marie I. Crossley
        • Pilar Diaz
        • Harry J. DiDonato
        • Jaycie DiNardo
        • Caroline G. Donato
        • Nicholas S. Eisel
        • Sally A. Farrell
        • Brian J. Forgue
        • William J. Gallagher
        • Patrick J. Gallo, Jr.
        • Mary Kay Gaver
        • J. Charles Gerbron, Jr.
        • Leo M. Gibbons
        • Joseph P. Green, Jr.
        • Frank W. Hosking III
        • Katherine A. Isard
        • Peter E. Kratsa
        • Mary E. Lawrence
        • Daniel R. Losco
        • Michael G. Louis
        • John F. McKenna
        • Matthew M. McKeon
        • Lou Mincarelli
        • Brian L. Nagle
        • Lance J. Nelson
        • Timothy F. Rayne
        • Michael C. Rovito
        • Duke Schneider
        • Andrew R. Silverman
        • Ashley B. Stitzer
        • Patrick L. Ware
        • Jeremy A. Whalen
        • Natalie R. Young
  • About Us
    • Our History
    • Our Approach
    • Social Responsibility
    • Testimonials
  • Careers
  • News & Updates
    • Articles by Our Attorneys
    • News
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Newsletters
  • Offices
    • Centreville, DE
    • Kennett Square, PA
    • West Chester, PA
  • Contact
  • (610) 436-0100

Articles by Our Attorneys

How Delaware’s Four-Physician-Associate Collaboration Cap Works 

August 4, 2026 by Andrew R. Silverman, Esq. Leave a Comment

This article is part of a series on Delaware’s new Physician Associate Act. Start with Delaware’s New Physician Associate Act: What Changed and Who It Affects. 

A practice that wants to add clinical capacity by hiring physician associates will, sooner or later, run into a numerical limit on how many of them a single physician may collaborate with. Delaware’s House Bill 325, signed May 12, 2026, gave experienced physician associates a path to independent practice and drew most of the attention this year, but it did not change that limit. 

For practices, then, the operative question is not what the new law permits. It is how the existing cap is counted, what falls outside it, and who bears the consequence when it is exceeded. 

How the cap is counted 

Under 24 Del. C. § 1771, a collaborating physician may not, at any given time, collaborate with more than four active physician associates unless the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline increases or decreases that number by regulation. 

The Board’s regulation clarifies that this is a concurrent, point-in-time limit rather than a limit on the number of relationships a physician may have. A physician “is only restricted to 4 physician[] assistants during 1 shift or while performing clinical work” and “may enter into collaborative agreements with more than 4,” provided that no more than four collaborate at once. (24 DE Admin. Code 1700-13.0.) 

That distinction is where compliance problems tend to arise, because practices generally count signed agreements while the statute counts simultaneous coverage. A group with six collaborative agreements on file and never more than four physician associates on a given shift is compliant. A group with four agreements and a Saturday on which all four overlap with a fifth physician associate covering under an informal arrangement is not. 

Who bears the risk 

It is worth noting where the exposure sits. A physician who collaborates in violation of the cap is subject to discipline by the Board for permitting the unauthorized practice of medicine. 

That characterization follows a physician through credentialing, payor contracting, and licensure renewal. Thus, while the practice absorbs the operational disruption of a coverage failure, the physician absorbs the professional consequence, which is a reason to treat the cap as a governance matter rather than a scheduling matter. 

What the cap does not reach 

Three categories fall outside the four-physician-associate limit. 

  1. Shared physical space. The cap does not apply to physicians and physician associates practicing in the same physical office or facility building, an emergency department being the statute’s own example, so long as there is active physician coverage. This is the broadest exception available to a brick-and-mortar practice, and it is worth confirming that the coverage in question is genuinely active rather than nominal. 
  1. Nurse practitioners. Delaware advanced practice registered nurses are independent licensed practitioners under the exclusive licensure authority of the Board of Nursing. There is no collaborating-physician requirement, no ratio, and no cap; consultation is required only “as appropriate,” and an advanced practice registered nurse is held to no lesser standard of care than a physician. (24 Del. C. §§ 1902, 1935.) Where the constraint a practice is actually solving for is clinical capacity rather than physician associate capacity specifically, nurse practitioners may be the more direct path. 
  1. Physician associates holding independent practice authority, probably. The cap counts physician associates a physician “collaborate[s] with,” and a physician associate holding independent practice authority has no collaborative agreement by definition. The statutory text therefore indicates that such physician associates fall outside the four. 

That last reading is textually sound based on the language of the statute but has not been confirmed. The Board’s regulation predates the independent practice authority amendments, offers no guidance on a roster combining collaborating and independent physician associates, and no Board interpretation has surfaced. Before adopting a staffing model that depends on the point, a practice would be well advised to seek written confirmation from the Board, because the consequence of being wrong is a disciplinary finding against its physicians. 

Options for expanding physician associate capacity 

Several compliant approaches are available, and most practices have more room than they realize. 

  • Stagger schedules so that no physician collaborates with more than four physician associates at once. This is the least expensive option and the one most often overlooked, because the cap is generally read as a headcount problem when it is in fact a calendar problem. 
  • Obviously, adding collaborating physicians would allow for an additional four-physician-associate allotment. 
  • Use the same-building exception where a physician is on site with active coverage. 
  • Prioritize physician associates who will qualify for independent practice authority, subject to the caveat above. 
  • Seek a Board exemption. The Board may increase the number upon a written application showing good cause, decided case by case, with the physician bearing the burden of demonstrating no danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. 
  • Maintain genuine collaboration. The collaborating physician “may not be involved in patient care in name only and must be involved in active patient care on a regular basis,” with defined scope, access, and performance-evaluation processes. A collaborating physician in name only will not survive scrutiny, and again, the risk attaches to the physician. 

TIP: Because the cap is measured at a point in time, the most useful compliance document is not the roster of collaborative agreements but the schedule. A practice that can produce a shift-by-shift record showing that no physician exceeded four concurrent collaborations is in a substantially better position than one that can produce only its agreements. 

Planning for physician associate departures 

There is a second-order effect of the new law that practices may want to consider now rather than later. 

A physician associate with more than 6,000 post-graduate clinical hours, which is roughly three to four years of full-time practice, will shortly be able to apply to practice independently. Until May of this year, that was not a realistic option in Delaware. Independent practice authority therefore gives a practice’s most experienced physician associates an alternative they did not previously have, and the physician associates most likely to pursue it are generally the ones a practice would least like to lose. 

Three steps are worth taking while the regulations remain pending. 

  1. Identify which physician associates are at or approaching the 6,000-hour threshold. Most practices do not track this, because until recently there was no reason to. 
  1. Revisit compensation, autonomy, and partnership-track arrangements for that group specifically. A physician associate weighing independence is comparing the practice’s offer against a business plan rather than against another employer’s salary range. 
  1. Review notice provisions and post-employment terms in physician associate agreements, ideally before the regulations issue rather than after. 

Conclusion 

The cap is measured at a point in time rather than by agreements on file; the disciplinary exposure runs to the collaborating physician rather than to the practice entity; and several categories of clinician, including nurse practitioners and probably physician associates holding independent practice authority, fall outside the limit altogether. 

Practices that have not recently audited their collaboration coverage against a schedule, rather than against a personnel roster, are advised to do so, and to confirm any assumptions about independent practice authority with the Board before building them into a staffing plan. 

Also in this series: [Independent Practice Authority for Delaware Physician Associates] and [Telehealth, Limited Liability Companies, and Independent Practice] 

Andy Silverman is a partner in the Business Department at MacElree Harvey, Ltd. He advises medical practices and providers on business structure and governance, equity and physician compensation arrangements, employment agreements, private equity and M&A transactions, and regulatory and tax matters. Admitted in both Delaware and Pennsylvania, he holds an LL.M. in Taxation from Villanova University School of Law and is a member of the American Health Law Association. 

This article reflects Delaware law as of August 4, 2026. The Regulatory Council’s implementing regulations had not been adopted as of publication. 

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising. 

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys

Mediation at MacElree Harvey: A Faster, More Effective Path to Resolution

August 4, 2026 by Lou Mincarelli Leave a Comment

Over the past month, Attorneys John F. McKenna and Lou A. Mincarelli have successfully mediated four civil matters as part of their mediation and arbitration practice (MH/MA) at MacElree Harvey. 

Their recent successes highlight the many advantages mediation offers individuals and businesses seeking efficient, practical solutions to legal disputes:

Save Time, Money, and Headaches

For many parties, mediation provides a welcome alternative to lengthy and expensive litigation.

  • Lower costs: Mediation can significantly reduce legal expenses compared to drawn-out court proceedings.
  • Faster results: Rather than waiting months or even years for a trial date, mediation can often resolve disputes in a matter of days.
  • Less stress: Mediation takes place in a more relaxed and collaborative environment, avoiding much of the formality and pressure associated with courtroom litigation.

The Parties Set the Tone

Unlike traditional litigation, mediation places decision-making power in the hands of the people directly involved in the dispute.

  • Clients are empowered: The parties retain control over the outcome, making the final decision themselves rather than leaving it to a judge or jury.
  • Private and confidential: Mediation proceedings can remain confidential and outside the public court record.
  • Better communication: A neutral mediator facilitates productive discussions, helping participants communicate effectively in a calm and professional setting.

Effective Results That Last

Mediation often produces outcomes that are both creative and durable.

  • Creative solutions: Parties can develop customized agreements that may not be available through the court system.
  • Better follow-through: Because mediation agreements are reached collaboratively, participants are often more likely to honor their commitments.
  • Preserving relationships: By encouraging cooperation and mutual understanding, mediation can help prevent lingering resentment and preserve important personal and business relationships.

Why Consider Mediation?

Mediation provides parties with a meaningful opportunity to resolve disputes efficiently, privately, and on their own terms. With the guidance of experienced mediators, individuals and businesses can evaluate their options, address their concerns, and work toward solutions that are practical and sustainable.

To learn more about mediation and arbitration (MH/MA) services at MacElree Harvey, contact John F. McKenna or Lou A. Mincarelli, or visit macelree.com/contact-us.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys

Employment Law Update July 2026

July 29, 2026 by Jeffrey P. Burke, Esq. Leave a Comment

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Three Areas Employers Should Be Watching

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept confined to Silicon Valley. Today, employers of all sizes are deploying AI-powered tools to recruit talent, evaluate employee performance, manage productivity, and streamline human resources functions. These technologies offer significant efficiencies, but they also introduce new legal risks that employers cannot afford to ignore.

While AI has the potential to improve workplace decision-making, it does not alter an employer’s legal obligations under federal, state, and local employment laws. In fact, regulators and courts are increasingly emphasizing that employers remain accountable for decisions made with the assistance of AI. As adoption accelerates, three areas are likely to dominate employment law over the next several years.

1. AI in Hiring: Increased Scrutiny of Employment Decisions

Hiring is perhaps the area where AI has gained the greatest traction. Employers increasingly rely on software to screen resumes, rank applicants, analyze interview responses, and predict candidate success. Properly implemented, these tools can improve consistency and reduce administrative burdens. However, they also present significant legal challenges.

An AI system is only as reliable as the data on which it is trained. If historical hiring decisions reflect unconscious bias or fail to account for protected characteristics, an AI model may inadvertently replicate those patterns. Even absent discriminatory intent, employers may face disparate impact claims if an AI-assisted hiring process disproportionately excludes applicants based on race, sex, age, disability, or another protected characteristic.

Employers should remember that delegating hiring decisions to a software vendor does not transfer legal responsibility. If an employer relies on an AI recommendation in making an employment decision, that employer will likely remain responsible for ensuring the decision complies with applicable anti-discrimination laws.

To reduce risk, employers should conduct due diligence before implementing AI hiring tools. That includes understanding how a system evaluates candidates, requesting documentation regarding bias testing and validation, periodically auditing outcomes for disparate impacts, and maintaining meaningful human oversight throughout the hiring process. AI should inform employment decisions – not replace independent judgment.

2. AI-Powered Employee Monitoring and Performance Management

Artificial intelligence is also transforming how employers evaluate employee performance. Modern workplace technologies can analyze productivity metrics, review electronic communications, summarize meetings, monitor computer usage, and identify performance trends

in real time. These capabilities can provide valuable management insights, but they also create new legal considerations.

Employers have long monitored workplace activity, but AI enables monitoring at a scale and level of sophistication previously unavailable. The more expansive the monitoring, the greater the likelihood of challenges involving employee privacy, retaliation, disability accommodations, and protected workplace activity.

For example, an AI system that automatically flags employees for low productivity may fail to account for approved medical accommodations, protected leave, or other legitimate explanations for reduced output. Similarly, automated disciplinary recommendations may overlook important context that a human supervisor would recognize immediately.

From a litigation perspective, employers should be particularly cautious about allowing AI-generated performance scores or disciplinary recommendations to become the sole basis for adverse employment actions. Plaintiffs will undoubtedly argue that employers abdicated their responsibility by blindly following algorithmic recommendations without conducting an individualized assessment.

Best practices include maintaining transparency regarding monitoring practices where appropriate, establishing clear internal policies governing AI use, documenting management’s independent review of AI-generated information, and ensuring supervisors understand that AI is a decision-support tool – not the final decision-maker.

3. Wage and Hour Compliance in an AI-Driven Workplace

Artificial intelligence is also changing how employers manage scheduling, timekeeping, and workforce allocation. AI systems can optimize employee schedules, forecast staffing needs, monitor productivity, approve overtime, and identify attendance patterns with remarkable efficiency. These same systems, however, can generate significant wage and hour exposure if not carefully managed.

For example, productivity-monitoring software may reveal that employees routinely perform work before clocking in, continue responding to emails after scheduled hours, or work through unpaid meal periods. While AI can help identify these issues, it also creates detailed electronic records that may later become evidence in wage and hour litigation if employers fail to address them.

Likewise, automated scheduling systems should be monitored to ensure they comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding overtime, meal and rest periods, predictive scheduling requirements, and employee classification.

Employers should view AI as a compliance tool rather than merely an operational tool. Regular audits of AI-generated workforce data may help identify wage and hour risks before they develop into costly class or collective actions. HR, payroll, legal, and operations personnel should work collaboratively to ensure that AI-generated recommendations remain consistent with applicable employment laws and company policies.

Looking Ahead

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly become a permanent feature of the modern workplace. Employers that embrace these technologies thoughtfully stand to benefit from increased efficiency, improved consistency, and more informed decision-making. Those benefits, however, come with corresponding legal responsibilities.

The most successful organizations will not be those that simply adopt AI the fastest, but those that implement it responsibly. That means conducting careful vendor due diligence, regularly auditing AI systems for legal compliance, maintaining robust human oversight, and documenting employment decisions independent of algorithmic recommendations.

Employment law has always adapted to new workplace technologies. Artificial intelligence represents the next evolution. Employers that proactively establish sound governance today will be better positioned to minimize litigation risk while realizing the substantial benefits AI has to offer.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Jeffrey Burke

Can My Child Choose Which Parent They Want to Live With in Pennsylvania?

July 28, 2026 by Michael C. Rovito, Esq. Leave a Comment

Author: Michael C. Rovito, Esq.

It’s one of the most common questions I hear from parents, and the answer surprises many people: in Pennsylvania, there is no “magic age.” A child does not automatically get to decide where they will live when they turn 12, 14, 16, or any other age.

Instead, the court’s focus is always on the child’s best interests.

While a child’s preference may be considered, it is only one factor among many. The court may evaluate the child’s age and maturity, whether they’re expressing an independent and well-reasoned opinion, and whether anyone is improperly influencing that preference.

Generally speaking, the older and more mature the child, the more weight the court may give to that preference, but it is never the sole deciding factor.

Every family and every custody case is unique. Understanding how Pennsylvania courts approach these decisions can help parents make informed choices during an already difficult time.

If you have questions about your custody rights or are navigating a custody dispute, the Family Law team at MacElree Harvey, Ltd. is here to help. We’re committed to providing practical guidance and experienced representation tailored to your family’s unique circumstances. Contact Michael Rovito at (610) 840-0241 or MRovito@macelree.com to schedule a consultation.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: michael c. rovito, michael rovito

Even Cher Can’t Always Get Her Attorneys’ Fees Back

July 23, 2026 by Katherine Isard Leave a Comment

Author: Katherine A. Isard

A recent headline caught my eye: despite winning a long-running legal dispute over royalties against Sonny Bono’s widow, Cher was ordered to pay more than $1 million in her own legal fees. For non-lawyers, that may seem surprising. If you win, shouldn’t the other side have to pay your lawyers? Not necessarily.

In the United States, we generally follow what’s known as the “American Rule.” Simply put, each side typically pays its own attorneys’ fees, whether they win or lose. There are exceptions, of course. A contract may provide for fee-shifting, or a statute may allow the prevailing party to recover fees. But absent an exception, victory in court does not automatically come with a reimbursement check for legal expenses.

The Cher case is a timely reminder of an important reality: litigation costs matter just as much as the merits of the case.

When businesses and individuals evaluate a potential lawsuit, the questions should not be limited to: Can I win? They should also include:

  • What will it cost to get to a win?
  • Is the potential recovery worth the expense?
  • Is there a contractual or statutory basis to recover attorneys’ fees?
  • Would an early settlement produce a better overall result?

As litigators, we spend a lot of time discussing legal rights and legal strategy. Equally important is understanding the economics of a dispute. Sometimes the best outcome is not the biggest courtroom victory, but the one that makes the most practical and financial sense.

Or, as Cher’s experience illustrates: sometimes you can win the case and still write a very large check.

Whether you are facing a complex business dispute, employment matter, commercial real estate issue, or need guidance on contracts and corporate transactions, Katherine A. Isard provides strategic, practical legal counsel tailored to your goals. Contact Katherine today to discuss your legal needs at KIsard@macelree.com, visit macelree.com/contact-us, or call 610-436-0100.

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys

Employment Law Update June 2026 – Managing Remote Employees 

June 30, 2026 by Jeffrey P. Burke, Esq. Leave a Comment

The June 2026 employment law update provides guidance on best practices for managing remote employees. Remote work has become a permanent part of the modern workplace, offering employers greater flexibility and access to talented professionals regardless of geographic location. However, managing remote employees presents unique legal and operational challenges that require thoughtful planning. Employers should develop comprehensive policies and practices that promote accountability while reducing the risk of employment-related claims. 

Establish Clear Remote Work Expectations 

The foundation of remote work management is a well-written remote work policy. This policy can define work schedules, availability expectations, communication protocols, performance standards, and procedures for requesting leave or reporting workplace issues. Employees should understand when they are expected to be available, how they should document their work time, and which communication platforms they are expected to use. Establishing these expectations upfront minimizes misunderstandings, promotes consistency across the organization, and provides managers with objective standards for evaluating performance. 

Stay Compliant with Wage and Hour Laws 

Employers must remain vigilant about compliance with wage and hour laws. The fact that an employee works from home does not change an employer’s obligations under federal and state labor laws. Nonexempt employees should accurately record all hours worked, including time spent responding to emails or completing tasks outside of their scheduled shifts. Managers should be trained to avoid encouraging off-the-clock work and should promptly address unauthorized overtime while ensuring employees are compensated for all hours actually worked. Regular audits of timekeeping practices and manager training can help minimize costly wage and hour disputes. 

Respond Thoughtfully to Accommodation Requests 

Another issue that has become increasingly common is employee requests for remote work as a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition or disability. Employers should avoid treating these requests as automatic approvals or automatic denials. Instead, they should engage in the interactive process required by applicable disability discrimination laws to determine whether remote work – or another accommodation – would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the position without creating an undue hardship. 

This analysis should be individualized and based on the employee’s specific limitations, the essential duties of the position, and the employer’s operational needs. Employers should also recognize that if a position has been successfully performed remotely for an extended period, it may be more difficult to argue that regular on-site attendance is an essential job function. Carefully documenting the interactive process and the rationale for accommodation decisions can significantly reduce legal risk if those decisions are later challenged. 

Protect Confidential Information and Company Data 

Protecting confidential business information is another significant concern in remote work environments. Employers should implement cybersecurity measures such as multi-factor authentication, secure virtual private networks, encrypted devices, and strong password requirements. Regular cybersecurity training can help employees recognize phishing attempts, avoid unsafe internet practices, and properly safeguard sensitive client and company information. Written policies should also address the appropriate use of personal devices, home printing, document retention, and the secure disposal of confidential materials. 

Evaluate Performance Based on Results 

Performance management often requires a different approach when employees are working remotely. Rather than evaluating employees based on their online presence or immediate responsiveness, employers should establish objective performance metrics tied to job responsibilities and measurable outcomes. Regular check-ins, documented feedback, and consistent performance evaluations help employees stay engaged while reducing the likelihood of claims involving inconsistent treatment or discrimination. 

Understand Multi-State Employment Obligations 

One of the most overlooked challenges of managing a remote workforce is compliance with the employment laws of multiple jurisdictions. In many cases, the laws of the state or locality where the employee lives and performs the work – not where the employer’s headquarters is located – will govern key aspects of the employment relationship. As a result, employers with remote employees in different states may be subject to a patchwork of wage and hour laws, paid leave requirements, meal and rest break rules, final paycheck obligations, expense reimbursement statutes, and other state-specific employment regulations. 

Employers should periodically review their policies, payroll practices, and remote work arrangements to ensure compliance with the laws applicable in each jurisdiction where employees work. Conducting regular legal audits can help identify compliance gaps before they result in costly litigation or government investigations. 

The Bottom Line 

Remote work offers significant benefits for both employers and employees, but it also requires careful attention to evolving legal obligations. By implementing clear policies, maintaining compliant wage and hour practices, thoughtfully addressing accommodation requests, safeguarding confidential information, managing performance consistently, and understanding multi-state employment laws, employers can reduce legal risk while fostering a productive, engaged, and successful remote workforce. 

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.  

Filed Under: Articles by Our Attorneys Tagged With: Jeffrey Burke

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 37
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Footer

(610) 436-0100

LEGAL SERVICES

ABOUT US

NEWS & INSIGHTS

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Staff Only
  • Careers

© 2026 and all rights reserved by MacElree Harvey, Ltd.