The attorneys in our Medical Malpractice Practice defend medical professionals and providers in all areas of health care liability, ranging from medical malpractice and credentialing and licensing issues to investigations involving governmental agencies. Our clients include:
- Physicians
- Registered nurses
- Certified registered nurse anesthetists
- Dentists
- Oral surgeons and other specialties
- Midwives
- Psychologists
- Psychiatrists
- Podiatrists
- Chiropractors
- Physical therapists
- Occupational therapists
- Physician assistants
- Anesthesiologists
- Optometrists
- Veterinarians
- Social workers
In addition, we count many health care institutions among our clients, including:
- Hospitals
- Health systems
- Surgical centers
- Psychiatric and behavioral health facilities
- Health clinics
- Veterinary practices
- Addiction services
- Medical staffing corporations
The health care industry is constantly evolving, and we recognize the need to remain abreast of these changes in order to best serve our clients. Our attorneys have a strong command of the complex regulations and operational challenges facing providers, and several bring valuable clinical experience as former health care professionals.
Our health care attorneys have a reputation for excellence and dedication to defending all manner of professionals, hospitals and other entities in the health care environment. Clients benefit from a unique blend of experienced and dedicated litigators providing widespread geographical coverage throughout Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, with attorneys also licensed in neighboring jurisdictions.
By collaborating with our clients early in the litigation process, we can determine their expectations and counsel them as the case develops. While every case is unique and each client has different needs, we prioritize timely, frequent and substantive communication in our approach to defending their interests and achieving desired results.
We take great pride in the depth of litigation experience our firm offers and will not hesitate to try cases to verdict and challenge issues at the appellate level. Our experienced bench of trial attorneys is complemented by a strong group of younger attorneys focused on honing their litigation skills. We are committed to the continued development of all of our attorneys and have invested in training and mentoring programs that will enable us to have a strong bar for years to come.
Results
Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial
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
Case Law Alerts
Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Jury Instruction on Increased Risk of Harm in Medical Malpractice Cases
April 1, 2026
In this appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania clarified in an important unpublished opinion, the requirements for plaintiffs to obtain a jury instruction on increased risk of harm in medical malpractice actions. At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from a maternal fetal medicine expert that the attending physicians deviated from the standard of care by delaying C-section delivery after monitoring fetal heart rate decelerations. The plaintiff also elicited testimony from a pediatric neurologist that minor-plaintiff was at risk for stroke based on diminished fetal heart tracings and blood flow. Importantly, the plaintiff failed to present any expert testimony that the defendants’ alleged failure to timely initiate a C-section delivery caused or increased the risk of harm of minor-plaintiff’s injury. Prior to the jury charge, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for an instruction on increased risk of harm. Ultimately, the jury found that the defendants’ conduct was not the factual cause of minor-plaintiff’s harm and awarded no damages. The plaintiff appealed, asserting that the trial court’s decision to not charge the jury on increased risk of harm was a clear abuse of discretion and error of law. The Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions provide for a “relaxed” causation charge under specific circumstances. This instruction on increased risk of harm provides, in relevant part, as follows: Where the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the negligent act or failure to act or delay on the part of the defendant has increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff, this testimony, if found credible, provides a sufficient basis from which you may find that the negligence was a factual cause of the injuries sustained. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 14.20. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying plaintiff’s request for an instruction on increased risk of harm. The court held that in order for plaintiffs to be entitled to the jury charge, they must provide expert testimony, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the acts and omissions complained of could cause the type of harm suffered. Since the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony that the defendants’ alleged failure to timely initiate C-section delivery caused or increased the risk of harm of the brain injury suffered by minor-plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to the increased risk of harm instruction at trial. The Superior Court’s decision is helpful for healthcare defendants, as it clarifies the legal standard necessary for plaintiffs to demonstrate a basis for instructing the jury on increased risk of harm, which has been diluted over time. Litigants in medical malpractice cases should cautiously analyze each element of expert testimony at trial to ensure this standard has been satisfied when it is anticipated the plaintiff will request an instruction on increased risk of harm.
The Quarterly Dose
LEGAL ROUNDUP – Ohio
February 25, 2026
Ohio Appellate Courts Split on Constitutionality of Medical Malpractice Damages Cap: Sixth District Enforces Limit McNalley v. Keiser, 2025-Ohio 5561 Earlier this year, the 10th District and the 8th District in Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital, 2025-Ohio-2991 (10th Dist.) and Paganini v. Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland, 2025-Ohio-275 (8th Dist.), respectively, held that Ohio’s medical malpractice non-economic damages cap is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff-appellees. Ohio’s 6th District in its case, McNalley v. Keiser, 2025-Ohio-5561 (6th Dist.), held that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing that the non-economic damages cap was unconstitutional as applied. McNalley sued radiologist Dr. Keiser and his employer after Keiser allegedly failed to diagnose a blood clot, resulting in extensive bowel loss and short-gut syndrome. At trial, a jury awarded McNalley approximately $5.15 million, including $4.5 million in non-economic damages. Dr. Keiser moved to apply the statutory cap on non-economic damages for medical claims, which limits recovery to $500,000 for plaintiffs who suffer catastrophic injuries. McNalley opposed the motion, arguing that the statute violated both due process and equal protection as applied to him, although the 6th District noted that the substance of McNalley’s arguments suggested he was arguing that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. The trial court denied the motion, holding the cap unconstitutional as applied to McNalley, but declined to find the statute unconstitutional on its face. On appeal, the 6th District emphasized the critical distinction between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. In a rational basis analysis, as used here, to show that a statute is unconstitutional on its face, the movant must show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no set of circumstances under which the statute may be valid. To show a statute as unconstitutional as applied, a movant must show clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that makes the statute unconstitutional when those facts are applied. Although McNalley framed his argument as an as-applied due process challenge, the court found that he failed to present clear and convincing, case-specific facts showing that the statute was unreasonable or arbitrary as applied to him. Instead, his arguments—like those relied upon by the trial court—amounted to a broader attack on the statute’s treatment of all catastrophically injured medical malpractice plaintiffs, which constitutes a facial challenge, and he did not meet the heightened standard. The court was not persuaded by the holding in Paganini, going so far as to indicate that they would have agreed with the defendants that the challenge in Paganini was actually a facial challenge and would have held differently. Accordingly, the court held that the holding in Lyon was appropriately found, based upon articulated and specific facts as applied to the plaintiff. In this case, the court noted that both parties’ arguments were nearly devoid of facts, thereby only allowing it to view the challenge as a facial challenge. Because McNalley did not meet the heightened burden required for a facial challenge and the record lacked specific factual findings supporting an as-applied challenge, the 6th District concluded that the statutory cap must be enforced. The 6th District reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to apply the noneconomic damages cap under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3), reinstating the statutory limitation on McNalley’s recovery. The Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Paganini on February 10, 2026. The decision in Lyon has not been appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
