.
Health Care

Marshall Dennehey Appoints Robin B. Snyder and Donna M. Modestine to Lead the Firm’s Health Care Department

January 3, 2023

Marshall Dennehey announced today that shareholders Robin B. Snyder and Donna M. Modestine have been appointed leaders of the firm’s Health Care Department, effective January 1, 2023. Snyder, formerly Assistant Director of the Department, was elevated to Director and Modestine is now Assistant Director. In this capacity, they will manage and supervise the firm’s 65+ health care attorneys throughout 14 of the firm's 19 offices.

The leadership transition marks the first time in the firm’s history where two female attorneys are leading a core department of the firm. Snyder inherits the position from T. Kevin FitzPatrick who successfully led the department for 11 years. While FitzPatrick is stepping down from leadership, he will maintain a robust health care litigation practice with the firm.

Both Snyder and Modestine have spent their legal careers at Marshall Dennehey and have long tenures with the firm.

An accomplished civil litigator and trial lawyer, Snyder is also a member of Marshall Dennehey’s Board of Directors. She has more than 25 years of medical malpractice litigation experience and has tried almost 40 civil cases to verdict. She will relocate from King of Prussia to the firm’s Philadelphia office.

Modestine, resident in the firm’s King of Prussia office, is an active litigator who represents a large number of hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania, as well as physicians, physician groups, allied health professionals and long-term care facilities.
 
“We are excited for the continued growth of the Health Care Department at Marshall Dennehey,” said Snyder. “Our goal is to build market share by offering superior litigation services and support to our clients. The rapidly changing healthcare environment is a core concern for businesses and countless medical professionals who tirelessly treat patients with quality care and put their professional reputations on the line every day. In Pennsylvania, we are monitoring changes to the medical malpractice venue rules and the anticipated impact on health care providers both locally and nationally.” 

Snyder and Modestine both agree that mentoring will be a strong component of their growth strategy moving forward.

“We will continue to place a high priority on fostering strong client relationships and a collaborative environment within the department,” said Modestine. “Our experienced bench of trial attorneys is complemented by a strong group of associates with a keen interest in honing their litigation skills. We are committed to the development of our younger attorneys, with the ultimate goal of seeing them in the courtroom defending our clients’ interests.”
 
Snyder is an elected associate member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a national association of experienced trial lawyers and judges that works to enhance the civil trial jury system. A member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, she is also recognized among the Best Lawyers in America® in the area of health care litigation. A graduate of Pennsylvania State University and Widener University School of Law, she is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Modestine is a member of the Pennsylvania and Delaware County Bar Associations. She is included in the 2022 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine in the area of medical malpractice defense, and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.  
 

Firm Highlights

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars