.

Gary is a highly skilled trial attorney who has successfully handled more than 200 major jury trials throughout his career. With a primary focus on the health care industry, he represents doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, hospitals, and facilities of all types when facing catastrophic outcomes and medical malpractice lawsuits. Gary divides his time between our King of Prussia and Philadelphia offices. 

Gary is also experienced in complex civil litigation matters encompassing all areas of professional liability, sexual assault, property litigation and intellectual property. Representing clients in the federal and state courts, he has successfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has handled scores of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. He serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and is a trained mediator.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Gary chaired the Professional Liability and Catastrophic Loss practice groups at a well-known Philadelphia-based law firm. Gary was named one of Pennsylvania's Top 100 Lawyers and one of Philadelphia's Top 100 Lawyers five times, and has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer since 2006 by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers®. He is also recognized in the 2025 and 2024 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® for professional malpractice law – defendants.

Outside of the courtroom, Gary is a distinguished speaker and lecturer on litigation topics including trial tactics, expert selection and cross-examination. He has also been featured on Fox Business News' "Xpert Forum" program.

    • University of Arkansas School of Law
    • West Chester University
    • Pennsylvania, 1990
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • The Legal Intelligencer – Professional Excellence Award – “Distinguished Leader” (2020)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2006-2026; Top 100 in Pennsylvania, 2009-2011, 2013-2014; Top 100 in Philadelphia, 2009-2011, 2013-2014)
    • Suburban Life Magazine – Top Attorneys (2013-2022)
    • American Bar Association
    • American Inns of Court
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained a Non-Suit in a wrongful death case in Delaware County. The Court found upon Motion that there was no link to causation after extensive, nuanced argument. (2025)
    • After an 11-day trial, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of four physicians and a major teaching hospital in Philadelphia. The medical malpractice action involved the labor and delivery of a baby later alleged to have a hypoxic birth injury that caused developmental delays and permanent brain damage, among other issues. The plaintiffs’ experts boarded $21 million in future medical costs to take care of the child and the demand in the pretrial was commensurate with those numbers. (2025)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict in Philadelphia on behalf of a prominent orthopedic surgeon accused of inappropriate touching of a patient. The plaintiff alleged that the physician inappropriately touched her during a preoperative examination for bilateral hip surgery. Through meticulous cross-examination and persuasive argument, the defense team achieved a complete victory. (2025)
    • Obtained a dismissal in the middle of trial after cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses in a case involving a former NFL player and opera singer who contended they had permanent injuries after knee surgery and the failure to diagnose a pseudoaneurysm. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to dismiss Gary and his client prior to the end of their case to prevent him from participating in the trial further, and decided to limit their recovery to the other defendants due to the successful cross-examination. (2025)
    • Secured a medical malpractice defense verdict in a complex urosepsis case where the damages included allegations of neurological sequelae and cognitive deficits. The trial was marked by aggressive cross-examination of expert witnesses and a deep dive into comprehensive neurological records and literature. (2025)
    • Received a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a six-day trial in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs had contended the anesthesiologist failed to deal with internal bleeding, blood pressure issues and failed to communicate with the surgeon during a Cesarean section and in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), leading to the plaintiff almost bleeding out and causing the loss of her uterus during an emergency hysterectomy. The jury was receptive to the defense arguments that, in fact, the doctor not only complied with the standard of care, but exceeded it. (2024)
    • Achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a wrongful death case. The lawsuit included allegations of failure to workup and diagnose lung cancer. The 9-day trial revolved around the care provided by the primary care and orthopedic physicians. The plaintiffs claimed the patient’s symptoms were related to a Pancoast tumor that was undiagnosed, resulting in his death. Gary was able to establish with the jury the superiority of the defense experts by comparison, and explain there can be concurrent diseases and there was an objective reason for each and every one of the patient’s symptoms. (2024)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a cardiologist cardiologist who was accused of causing the death of a patient. The plaintiff contended the cardiologist should have immediately sent his patient to the hospital for an emergent cardiac catheterization due to unstable angina. Gary persuaded and convinced the jury that the patient indeed had stable angina and did not need urgent care, even though the patient died four days after the visit. (2024)
    • Secured a defense verdict on behalf of a gynecological surgeon facing accusations of damaging a woman’s ureters and urinary tract during a laparoscopic hysterectomy. The plaintiff claimed that the doctor’s alleged inexperience and negligence led to a transection of the ureter. Following the verdict, the jury emphasized that Gary’s cross-examination of the plaintiff’s experts played a pivotal role in the verdict. (2024)
    • Obtained a total dismissal of a hospital client after six days of trial. The matter involved allegations against the hospital for direct negligence and agency after a radical cystectomy, sepsis, perforation of the bowel and death. (2024)
    • Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a urologist in a case involving testicular torsion. After a six-day trial the jury found the doctor was not liable for any injury sustained by the plaintiff. The key issue in the case revolved around presentation in the emergency room and the interpretation of an ultrasound as well as the presenting symptoms and complaints of the plaintiff. (2024)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict after a six-day trial on behalf of a primary care physician accused of failing to timely diagnose cancer. The unanimous verdict was reached after a thorough and aggressive cross-examination of experts. Gary persuaded the jury that the doctor’s actions were appropriate and that no CT screening was required for this patient despite their extensive smoking history. (2024)
    • After an 8-day trial regarding the death of a patient, Gary obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an interventional cardiologist. The plaintiff alleged the doctor was negligent in his interpretation of an echocardiogram and in the performance of a ventriculogram during a cardiac catheterization. Gary succeeded in presenting expert testimony from four different specialties to persuade the jury his client acted appropriately at all times. Aggressive cross-examination of plaintiffs' experts contributed greatly to the victory. (2023)
    • Secured a defense verdict after a nine-day trial where the jury found no liability for a primary care physician who was accused of making improper referrals to a weight loss physician and failing to work up a 36-year-old obese woman for cardiac issues. The decedent left behind a 4-year-old son and quadriplegic husband making the case extremely sympathetic. (2023)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict in Chester County on behalf of a podiatric surgeon after a six-day trial. Plaintiffs alleged the doctor failed to meet the standard of care by not closely observing a patient in follow-up post-surgery on a severe Charcot foot, allowing an infection that led to a below-the-knee amputation. The trial involved seven experts and complicated medicine regarding various infectious pathogens. (2023)
    • Secured a defense verdict for two anesthesiologists accused of malpractice. The plaintiffs had claimed the anesthesiologists failed to properly hydrate the patient during the procedure as well as adequately and appropriately monitor the blood pressure and heart rate. They were also criticized for extubating prior to the patient meeting the necessary criteria. The plaintiffs alleged the deficiencies resulted in poor perfusion to the bowel which led to necrosis and resection leaving the patient with short gut syndrome and cognitive deficits. The jury commented on the effective cross-examination and the quality of the defendants’ experts as being important in their analysis. Raymond Petruccelli was instrumental in the defense of this case. (2023)
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a lab director, hospital and health care system. Gary was asked to “parachute” in two weeks before trial and represent these health care providers. The complex case involved a lab mix-up that caused plaintiffs to have unnecessary surgery in the form of a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The surgery caused complications of stress urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The plaintiff made an eight-figure demand and the trial lasted eight days. (2023)

Results

View all
blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Hospital hallway photo of nurses and doctors walking away down hall photo

Defense Verdict Secured on Behalf of a Major Philadelphia Healthcare Provider

Thought Leadership

View all

Podcast/Webinar

Combatting Nuclear Verdicts in Plaintiff-Friendly Jurisdictions

October 30, 2025

In this podcast episode, John Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/insurance-law-podcast-am-best/2025/10/combatting-nuclear-verdicts-in-plaintiff-friendly-jurisdictions/

News

View all

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

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial