.

Charles T. Gura

Supervising Attorney Health Care Department - New York & Connecticut Offices

Office Managing Attorney

CTGura@mdwcg.com

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

View all

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

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group