.

Prominent Trial Attorney Gary Samms Brings Health Care Litigation Group to Marshall Dennehey

September 18, 2024

Gary Samms, one of the Philadelphia region’s premier medical malpractice trial attorneys, has moved to Marshall Dennehey, bringing with him members of his litigation group from Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel.

The move brings two shareholders, one associate, two paralegals and administrative support staff to Marshall Dennehey’s Philadelphia and King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, offices. Samms and Raymond A. Petruccelli join as shareholders; Samms will divide his time between the two offices, and Petruccelli will be located in King of Prussia. Julinda Hoxha joins as an associate in Philadelphia. All will practice in the firm’s Health Care Department.

“We are thrilled to welcome Gary, Ray, Julinda and their litigation staff to our Pennsylvania Health Care Department,” said Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson. “Throughout his career, Gary has successfully handled more than 200 major jury trials, with 20 in the past year alone. Together, the group brings exceptional trial talent to our already accomplished bench of attorneys. They are the ultimate professional and lateral fit as we continue to expand our practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Samms leaves Obermayer, where he most recently led the firm’s Professional Liability and Catastrophic Loss practice groups, after 26 years. He has taken to conclusion more than 200 jury trials and scores of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. Through the years he has represented doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, hospitals, and facilities of all types when facing catastrophic outcomes and medical malpractice lawsuits. He is additionally accomplished in defending cases involving sexual assault claims. Samms serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and is a trained mediator. He is a graduate of West Chester University and the University of Arkansas School of Law. 

Petruccelli is highly accomplished in the areas of medical malpractice and professional liability defense. Representing clients in Pennsylvania’s state and federal courts, he is experienced in all aspects of litigation, including jury trials and appeals, arbitration and mediation. He has additionally secured several appellate victories in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of physicians and other health care professionals. Petruccelli is a graduate of Fordham University and Villanova University School of Law.

Hoxha focuses her practice on medical malpractice and professional liability defense, and represents health care providers and facilities in medical malpractice matters throughout the state. She is a graduate of Drexel University and Widener University Delaware Law School.  

Samms commented on the move. “I had a great run at Obermayer and am grateful for the opportunities and relationships made there,” he said. “I’ve worked with many Marshall Dennehey attorneys over the years and have witnessed first-hand their excellent lawyering and absolute commitment to their clients. As my litigation practice continues to grow, the time had come where the support and resources offered at the firm became very attractive to me. This is a great move for me personally and, most importantly, for my clients.” 
 

Health Care Litigation Group Joins Firm

Firm Highlights

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.