.

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…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

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.