.

Charles T. Gura

Supervising Attorney Health Care Department - New York & Connecticut Offices

Office Managing Attorney

Portrait of Charles T. Gura

Charles has gained experience in a diverse range of practice areas throughout his career, with a specific focus on medical malpractice defense litigation since 2004. He has handled more than 200 hundred medical malpractice cases to date, representing physicians and hospitals through all phases of litigation, including trial. Charles has also represented health care providers in disciplinary hearings.

In addition to representing health care providers, Charles has experience defending commercial property owners in premises liability cases, owners and contractors in construction accident cases under New York Labor Law, a boiler manufacturer in mass-tort asbestos litigation and a major commercial airline in aviation matters. He has also defended dram shop cases.

Charles has obtained defense verdicts and achieved settlement of cases well below the amount demanded during trial and beforehand through motion practice. For instance, in representing obstetricians in birth-related injury cases, Charles successfully petitioned the court to perform genetic testing on the infant-plaintiff, the results of which led to a substantial reduction in the settlement demand.

While attending New York Law School, Charles was employed as a claims examiner for a large insurer of doctors and hospitals in the state of New York. During that time he worked with physicians in all fields of surgery and medicine, oversaw a hospital account, and worked on risk management and regulatory issues. 

Charles began his legal career at Jones Hirsch Connors Miller & Bull P.C. He practices mainly in the New York City metropolitan area, in both State and Federal Courts, as well as the State of Connecticut.

Charles is a member of the New York State Medical Defense Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. An active member of his community, Charles is a student mentor at New York Law School and has served in various leadership roles at his church.

    • New York Law School (J.D., 1997)
    • State University of New York at Oswego (B.A., 1990)
    • Connecticut, 1997
    • New York, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
    • Hudson Valley Magazine, Top Lawyer, 2022
    • New York State Medical Defense Bar Association
    • New York State Bar Association
    • Defense verdict for two internists and their practice group in a wrongful death case involving failure to diagnose lung cancer in a 58-year-old patient.
    • Defense verdict in a case involving failure to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy leading to rupture and requiring emergency surgery.
    • Defense verdict in a case involving alleged negligent administration of anesthesia causing sepsis.
    • Directed verdict and dismissal of all claims against three intensivists and a urologist in a  case involving complications in the SICU following cardiothoracic surgery.
    • Bothe v. Vytra Health Plans Long Island, 13 A.D.3d 586 (App.Div.2d Dep’t 2004) summary judgment affirmed dismissing medical malpractice claim against an HMO based on ERISA preemption.
    • Civil Litigation State of Affairs – The Impact of COVID-19 in New York and Connecticut & What’s Next, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May, 2021
    • New York Case Law Update, Health Care Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 9, 2016
    • Representation of indigent defendants in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act matters.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Marshall Dennehey’s Connecticut Anchor: The View From State Street

September 30, 2026

Marshall Dennehey’s New Haven, Connecticut office marked its fourth year in operation earlier this year.  Over the past four years the office has seen growth in the number of attorneys, support staff, and areas of practice. The attorneys in the New Haven office litigate matters both in State and Federal Courts across the entire state of Connecticut. Some lawyers in this office are also admitted to practice in New York and handle cases there in portions of the state contiguous to western Connecticut. The casualty group makes up the largest contingent of attorneys in the office. There are also attorneys who specialize in healthcare litigation who represent healthcare providers ranging from physicians to therapists as well as long term care facilities. The matters handled in the office range from professional liability, construction defect and liability, premises liability, retail liability, trucking, insurance coverage, healthcare litigation, and complex defense litigation. As our office handles cases in all jurisdictions throughout the state, collaboration is a key part of the culture at Marshall Dennehey and in the New Haven office. We have benefited from having litigators skilled in multiple areas of practice. This has resulted in the development of relationships with new clients and expansion of our long-standing clients of the firm. In addition to an increase in the number of attorneys there have been additions to the paralegal and administrative staff which have helped us provide our clients the highest level of litigation support. The smooth operation of the office is made possible by the capable leadership of our office manager, Amanda Britton, who has been on staff since the office opened in 2022. Conveniently located in the center of coastal Connecticut, and fueled by the best pizza around, the New Haven office is positioned for a bright future and continued success. Charles is the New Haven Office Managing Attorney and may be reached at CTGura@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our New Haven, Connecticut, Office

October 1, 2022

In March 2022, Marshall Dennehey opened its newest office in New Haven, Connecticut, to serve the needs of existing and future clients. Located at 700 State Street, our office is a short walk from the state and federal courts in New Haven and provides Marshall Dennehey with a platform centrally located in coastal Connecticut to allow for convenient access to courts in all judicial districts throughout the state. For the past several years, Marshall Dennehey has been handling a substantial Connecticut caseload, primarily out of the firm’s Westchester, New York, office. However, increasing client demand and opportunities led to the opening of the firm’s newest office, which is staffed with four experienced attorneys, a paralegal who is in her final year of law school, and outstanding legal support professionals. I am honored to be the managing attorney of this office. I have watched Marshall Dennehey’s practice in the state of Connecticut grow steadily since I joined the firm in July 2014, along with my fellow shareholder and Connecticut office colleague, Daniel Corde. I came to Marshall Dennehey with two decades of experience devoted almost entirely to the defense of medical malpractice cases. While I attended New York Law School, I worked as a claims examiner for Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC), one of the largest medical malpractice insurance carriers in the country, which gave me a strong foundation for my legal career. My practice has expanded over the years into other areas of litigation, while continuing to represent health care providers and facilities in both New York and Connecticut. In addition to representing physicians, medical practices and hospitals, our defense of long-term care, rehabilitation and therapy facilities has grown markedly in the past few years. The pandemic had also brought increased demand for psychotherapy and mental health care services, and our defense of professionals and institutions in these fields has expanded as well. Daniel Corde serves multiple jurisdictions, with admissions in both New York and Connecticut, where he has defended matters for well-known clients including IKEA, Hyatt, Raymour & Flanagan, and Dollar General. Dan has 35 years of litigation experience, including trials to verdict, arbitrations and mediations, in a wide range of practice areas such as product liability, premises liability, premises security, transportation product liability, and toxic tort, mold, and asbestos litigation matters. Further, Dan is a FAA-licensed pilot and has spent a considerable number of years managing claims for a major aviation insurer. He has served as monitoring counsel in this type of litigation, working with insurance companies, primary and excess insurers, fixed-based aviation clients and local counsel, to establish, coordinate and manage the defense of cases. He has conducted mediations across the United States. David Lane, a shareholder in the firm’s Professional Liability Department, focuses his practice on privacy and data security, intellectual property and technology litigation. With respect to privacy and data security, David represents clients through all stages of data breach response, including investigations, compliance with data breach notification laws and regulatory investigations. David has been accredited by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) as a certified information privacy professional (CIPP/US). In addition, he has significant experience in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, and consumer financial services litigation, defending clients and claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. David also has an appellate practice, working on appeals in a variety of matters. He is admitted in New York state and federal courts and Florida state courts. He practiced out of the firm’s Manhattan office for 12 years before joining us in New Haven. Caroline Skelton is an associate in the firm’s Casualty Department. Caroline has considerable civil defense litigation experience in both New York and Connecticut, where she has handled matters involving catastrophic losses. She has handled cases involving premises liability, construction accidents and accidents in the transportation industry. Caroline’s skills in motion practice, her attention to detail and her depth of knowledge have led to many successes in motions for summary judgment. She also litigates complex breach of contract actions in which she has represented high-profile clients such as General Motors. The New Haven office is also fortunate to have a dedicated support staff comprised of Michelle Ernandez, a paralegal now in her final year of law school, two administrative assistants, Amanda Britton and Caitlin Murtha, as well as one scheduling clerk, Mara Bonnell. I look forward to developing the New Haven, Connecticut, office into a site that will extend the firm’s reach throughout the state of Connecticut and beyond. Our office is located at 700 State Street, Suite 303, New Haven, CT 06511. Our main office phone number is 203-714-4560, and our fax number 203.714.4561. My direct line 203-714-4562, and my email is ctgura@mdwcg.com.   Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.