.

As an associate in the Health Care Department, Kevin's practice is devoted to representing physicians, physician assistants, hospitals, dentists and other health care providers in liability matters.

Kevin earned his B.A. in Psychology from the University of Kentucky and J.D. from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. During law school, Kevin completed a judicial externship for the Honorable Judge Steven C. Tolliver Sr. in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. He also participated in Villanova's Clinic for Law and Entrepreneurship as a student attorney providing pro bono legal assistance to local under-resourced businesses.

After law school graduation, Kevin returned to the chambers of the Honorable Judge Steven C. Tolliver Sr., serving as his law clerk. During this time, Kevin developed a strong understanding of litigation by writing opinions and memoranda, assisting in ruling on motions, and aiding in the disposition of multiple trials.

Outside of work, Kevin enjoys watching football and cycling.

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 2021)
    • University of Kentucky (B.A., cum laude, 2018)
    • Pennsylvania, 2021
    • Montgomery County Bar Association
    • Part of the team that obtained a defense verdict in Montgomery County on behalf of a podiatrist. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the podiatrist improperly placed a first metatarsophalangeal joint hemi implant, improperly placed bilateral sinus tarsi implants, and improperly utilized bilateral sinus tarsi implants all of which led to continuing foot pain after the removal of the bilateral sinus tarsi implants. The evidence presented to the jury demonstrated the proper placement of the first metatarsophalangeal joint hemi implant and the sinus tarsi implants, as supported by the subsequent treating physician, and the proper utilization of the bilateral sinus tarsi implants in order to treat plaintiff’s congenital flat feet resulting in degenerative changes in plaintiff’s bilateral first metatarsophalangeal joint. The trial lasted four days and the jury returned a verdict in approximately three hours. (2023)

Results

View all

Defense Verdict Secured in Medical Malpractice Case

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.   

Received a Defense Verdict for an Emergency Room Physician in a Medical Malpractice Case

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. The plaintiff at the time was 44 years old. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found that the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.

Thought Leadership

View all

The Quarterly Dose

LEGAL ROUNDUP – Pennsylvania

November 1, 2024

PA Superior Court Reaffirms Need for Expert Testimony in Support of Claim for Corporate Negligence and Provides Further Clarity as to ‘Obvious Negligence Wandell v. Robert Packer Hosp., 1532 MDA 2023, 2024 WL 3697497 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2024) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that expert testimony was still required in a matter involving an alleged defective toilet provided to a patient post surgery that broke and resulted in a fall and injuries to the patient.  The court specifically stated that this was not a case in which negligence was so obvious that expert testimony was not required and, in turn, granted summary judgment for failure to produce expert reports supporting the claims. The court was not compelled by the patient’s argument—a claim for corporate negligence based on the provision of a defective toilet to a post-surgical patient which broke and resulted in a fall—does not require expert testimony.  The court outlined that questions which required expert testimony regarding adequate and appropriate supervision, reasonable care to maintain facilities and equipment, and adequate training, among others, still existed. As such, summary judgment was proper for failing to produce experts in support of the patient’s claim.    PA Superior Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment Based on Gross Negligence Where Expert Opinions Are Sufficiently Supported by the Record Azaravich v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2024 PA Super 116, 318 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024), reargument denied (Aug. 12, 2024) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-hospital was improper where the medical records, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a gross deviation from the standard of care.  In vacating the trial court’s order, the Superior Court disagreed with the trail court insofar that the plaintiff’s experts failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions regarding gross negligence.  Further, in determining there was sufficient evidence for the opinions of the plaintiff’s experts, the Superior Court restated that where an expert’s conclusions are supported by the record, a trial court may not sua sponte criticize the expert’s opinions in an order or on summary judgment as that is a question of fact and credibility for the fact finder to determine.    The Quarterly Dose – November 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Case Law Alerts

PA Superior Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment Based on Gross Negligence Where Expert Opinions Are Sufficiently Supported by the Record.

October 1, 2024

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-hospital was improper where the medical records, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a gross deviation from the standard of care.  In vacating the trial court’s order, the Superior Court disagreed with the trail court insofar that the plaintiff’s experts failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions regarding gross negligence.  Further, in determining there was sufficient evidence for the opinions of the plaintiff’s experts, the Superior Court restated that where an expert’s conclusions are supported by the record, a trial court may not sua sponte criticize the expert’s opinions in an order or on summary judgment as that is a question of fact and credibility for the fact finder to determine.    Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

News

John J. Hare Featured in Pennsylvania & Delaware Super Lawyers Magazine

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.

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

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. 

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar