In his role in the Health Care Department, Dylan’s practice focuses on defending claims of medical malpractice and nursing home negligence.
Dylan is experienced in the many facets of litigation, having participated in dozens of arbitrations and hundreds of depositions, and having argued countless matters on behalf of his clients. He uses this experience to effectively litigate every matter, often resulting in favorable outcomes for his clients.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Dylan practiced at a small but well-respected firm in Central Jersey, where he litigated hundreds of cases on behalf of one of the largest insurance carriers in New Jersey. He previously served as a Committee Chair in the New Jersey Defense Association.
Dylan lives in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, with his wife.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Claims of Future Medical Expenses Must Be Examined Carefully During Discovery to Avoid Unnecessary Surprise at Trial
July 21, 2026
Often in actions involving injuries in New Jersey, a claim for future medical damages is made in tandem with any injury claim. Luckily, in January of 2026, the Appellate Division in the unpublished decision of Terrell v. Chitra provided insight as to when a plaintiff may actually recover future medical expenses. Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein she claimed injuries to the neck, back, and right shoulder, with specific claims of cervical disc herniation. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon recommended she undergo a cervical discectomy and fusion, though she never took any substantial steps towards receiving the surgery. However, at the time of trial, Plaintiff testified that she wanted to have the surgery and the trial court permitted medical expert testimony regarding the need for surgery and the cost of same. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $1,300,000 - $1,000,000 for pain and suffering and $300,000 for future medical costs. On appeal, Defendant argued that the future medical costs were inadmissible due to: 1. plaintiff’s failure to disclose her intention on having the surgery; and 2. the introduction of the cost of the speculative future surgery tainted the jury’s pain and suffering award. The Appellate Division agreed and found that the plaintiff never made a definitive statement pre-trial that she would have the surgery, thus prejudicing the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff expert’s opinion testimony regarding the future costs of the surgery were improper and tainted the overall value of the injuries and pain/suffering. Ultimately, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for an entirely new trial on damages, with a bar on introducing evidence of speculative future medical expenses. On June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of New Jersey entered an order denying a petition for certification. See Terrell v. Chitra, 2026 N.J. LEXIS 536 (2026). At its core, the holding in Terrell is a reminder that trial counsel must proactively file motions in limine to bar claims for speculative future medical expenses. While Terrell is a motor vehicle accident case, the holding is equally as applicable to medical malpractice and long-term care matters where plaintiffs make claims regarding future care. Defense counsel should be certain to question plaintiffs at their deposition regarding any future surgeries and make specific evaluations of medical expert reports for the claimed costs of future treatment.
The Quarterly Dose
LEGAL ROUNDUP – New Jersey
February 25, 2026
New Jersey Supreme Court Eases Affidavit of Merit Standard for Multi-Specialty Physicians in Medical Malpractice Cases Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, et al., 259 N.J. 562 (2025) A landmark decision with widespread implications for New Jersey medical malpractice law addresses whether an Affidavit of Merit from a board-certified internal medicine physician is sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss when the defendant doctor holds multiple specialties. The trial judge denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and opined that, when a physician practices multiple specialties, an Affidavit of Merit from any at-issue specialty is sufficient, in accordance with Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011). The Appellate Division reversed that decision, arguing that an Affidavit of Merit from physicians certified in each of the defendant’s specialties was required. Ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division and reaffirmed the trial court’s ruling—an Affidavit of Merit from any specialty at issue suffices when the defendant has multiple specializations. Obviously, this holding was based largely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41, which requires that an Affidavit of Merit come from an “appropriate licensed person” with specialization in the relevant field of the defendant physician. Interestingly, the Supreme Court reasoned that the statute’s language “specialist or subspecialist” specifically includes the operative word, OR; thus, an expert need only share a “singular” specialty as the defendant physician. At its core, Wiggins effectively eases a plaintiff’s burden in cases where the defendant has multiple specialties. In practice, should a defendant physician hold specialties in oncology, radiology and pediatrics, with board-certifications in same, and should the plaintiff offer an expert with a specialty in oncology, this would be sufficient under the statute to overcome a Motion to Dismiss, so long as the issue at hand involved the specialty of oncology.
