.

Matthew Gray is a member of the Casualty Department, with multiple years of experience focusing his practice on defending numerous insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection claims. Matthew is also a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has experience conducting Examinations Under Oaths/Depositions. Matthew also has expansive experience with motion practice, declaratory judgments and trial preparation/management. Matthew has played a key role in establishing the SIU Dec Action team, guiding and collaborating with his colleagues in the drafting of several Declaratory Judgement (DJ) actions.

Matthew has experience with the litigation, mediation and arbitration of matters in multiple practice areas. Specifically, Matthew focuses on fraud investigation, primarily dealing with evaluating both medical provider fraud and intentional/staged losses. Matthew has had great success for his clients and has been often recognized for his successful in both the Court room, as well as in arbitration matters.

In addition to personal injury protection claims, Matthew handles insurance defense litigation for bodily injury cases. He defends premises liability and automobile liability suits, as well as first-party property damage matters.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Matthew began his practice in No-Fault at a boutique law firm, where he managed hundreds of PIP matters. Additionally, he developed experience litigating and arbitrating all aspects of insurance defense claims matters.

Matthew earned his juris doctor from the Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in 2015. While at law school, he served as an ambassador and then, Secretary of the Student Bar Association, as well as President of the Columbian Lawyers' Association. He also was a competing member of Touro Law Center's Mock Trial Team. Matthew was named a Touro Public Interest Law Fellow in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Matthew earned a B.A. in English and a M.A. in English Literature, with a specialization in Dramatic Literature from St. John's University.

He is admitted in the state of New York.

    • Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (J.D., 2015)
    • St. John's University
      • M.A., 2012; B.A., magna cum laude, 2011
    • New York, 2015
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Insurance Law (2026)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2021-2026)
    • New York Metro Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2026)
    • Successfully defended, submitted post-hearing arguments and secured dismissal of a New York no-fault arbitration matter. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $361,601.62, claiming our client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment for a series of treatments rendered while hospitalized, post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly nor timely denied, therefore payment of the claims was overdue. However, We successfully argued at the arbitration hearing, that herein, Applicant’s client failed to provide the requisite statutorily required medical assignment of benefits form, assigned the hospital the right to sue on behalf of the injured party. After arguments were heard by the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator ordered post-hearing submissions to be submitted by both sides, to be submitted within the week. We researched, drafted and submitted said post-hearing submission, resulting in the Arbitrator ruling in our client’s favor, and thereby dismissing the matter based on the Applicant’s total failure to submit the requisite form, saving the client hundreds of thousands of dollars.  
    • Successfully secured full dismissal of a New York no-fault litigation matter. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Suffolk County's 3rd District Court in the total amount of $14,999.99, claiming our insurance company client owed it for the claimant's unpaid medical billing.  The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the same matter having been successfully argued and won in arbitration in June of 2021. However, after successful arguments and motion practice, and without significant opposition by plaintiff's counsel, the matter was dismissed, in full, by the court, which found that both res judicata and collateral estoppel applied. Therefore, the court found in full favor of our client and dismissed the suit and its accompanying complaint.
    • Successfully appealed, argued and obtained a full dismissal of joint arbitration matters filed against our client, when remanded to the lower arbitration forum. The applicant filed two, separate, yet related, arbitration matters claiming our client, an insurance carrier, owed them for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was supposedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 25, 2018, and sought payment for medical treatment provided from December 20, 2018, through April 5, 2019. Applicant's position was that payment was owed as the independent medical examination that found a lack of medical necessity was improper and weak, and because the policy of insurance was not yet exhausted. At the lower forum, the applicant was successful due to the arbitrator's misapplication and misinterpretation of the NYS No-Fault Regulations. However, on Master Appeal the Master Arbitrator found in our clients favor after the submission of briefs and remanded the hearing to the lower forum for an evidentiary hearing before a different arbitrator. That arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims on both matters.
    • Successfully defended an arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. The applicant filed an arbitration matter claiming our client owed him for the unpaid medical bills of the claimant, in the total amount of $20,772.99. The claimant was purportedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 12, 2016, and sought payment for medical treatments/surgery provided to the claimant on January 11, 2018. It was argued that our client owed the applicant's client for the medical services, despite New York state being the improper venue for hearing such a claim. The policy of insurance was written in Pennsylvania, the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, and the claimant lived in Pennsylvania. The provider of the medical services, the applicant, as well as the medical facility where the services were rendered were located in New Jersey. There was no apparent connection to the State of New York, other than the fact that the surgeon performing the surgery maintains an office there. The arbitrator agreed that this single contact with the was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the New York State No-Fault system to adjudicate these no-fault claims in the State of New York. As such, the arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant's claims, in its entirety.
    • Successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal in an Arbitration matter filed against our client, an insurance carrier. A surgical center in New Jersey filed an arbitration matter in the amount of $217,370.39.15, claiming our client owed it for unpaid medical bills of the claimant. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 15, 2017 and sought payment for medical treatment. The surgical center's position was that the entire amount was owed as it was not properly paid upon the initial submission of the billing to our client. However, after arguments were presented at the time of the arbitration hearing, our client’s policy of insurance was found to be completely and properly exhausted. Therefore, the Arbitrator found in full favor of our client, and denied the Applicant's entire $217,370.39.15 claim.

Results

View all

Successfully Fully Discontinued a New York No-Fault Action

We were successful in having a New York No-Fault (PIP) action fully discontinued, with prejudice. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $25,805.85, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and was processed/handled in full compliance with the applicable medical fee schedule(s). While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations and arguments, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full discontinuance of the matter, with prejudice.

Dismissal Obtained in a Medical Billings Claim Matter

We obtained full dismissal in a medical billings claim against our insurance carrier client in a New York No-Fault/PIP Action. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $22,610.79, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and denied on similar grounds. While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full dismissal of the matter. Thereby, our client was absolved from any fiscal liability in this action.

Thought Leadership

View all

SIU Spotlight

The Wild West on the East Coast: How the Fix Known as “No-Fault” Turned New York Into the O.K. Corral

July 1, 2024

Howdy! Did y’all come to hear about the virtues and triumphs of New York State No-Fault? Well sit on down and warm yourself by the fire, while I tell you the story of how a new little law gave way to greed, corruption and the white knights, known as Defense Counsel! Introduced in 1974, New York State’s No-Fault insurance system, controlled under Regulation 68 or 11 NYCRR Part 65, otherwise known as “the Regs,” quickly became the foundation of how auto accidents were dealt with and how compensation was disturbed. The Regs were meant to provide quick and efficient coverage for medical expenses, lost wage, and other such claims for reimbursement post-auto accident: all without the need for drawn-out legal battles. However, over the decades since its inception, and with the many amendments to the Regs, multiple dusty trails for deceptive practices have been uncovered. Originally what was intended as a streamlined method to process claims and have parties taken care of has become a standoff of the highest order. No-Fault law was created with certain tenets in mind which aim for the swift processing of claims. Two such tenets are that (1) claims be processed with haste and (2) the parties involved work together, amicably. While the basic and establishing principle of No-Fault law was always to ensure that auto accident victims received timely compensation for medical bills, etc., those who have taken on the practice seem to break into one of two groups: the lawmen who try to protect the public (Defense Counsel) and the outlaws trying to disturb the peace (Plaintiff’s Counsel). While it may be true that those seeking medical treatment are oft seen and treated without haste or worry, the trouble starts when the bad eggs from the medical field roll into town, enlisting Plaintiff’s Counsel firms to perpetrate their nefarious plans. For every provider properly billing and treating patients, you will find a bad actor hiding in the herd, causing chaos and frustration throughout. One may ask themselves, “But, how can just a few bad actors affect an industry?” In the simplest of terms, any Defense Counsel worth their boot leather would say, “The premiums.” You see, it is our job to protect our clients’ interests. When our job is done well, we are able, as Defense Counsel, as lawmen, to keep the bad providers out of our town. By analyzing the cases we are assigned, and by recognizing the tell-tale signs of fraud and overbilling, we protect our clients from paying out claims they would not otherwise have to; thus, saving them in exposure. This is repaid to the good citizens of our settlement, to those who enlist the protection of the insurance carriers, by allowing them to have affordable premiums and, in turn, allows them to feel protected by the coverages they pay for. While No-Fault may have been started with good intentions, it has taken a handful of bad eggs, acting with greed in mind, to try and exploit the entire system. For as good as Defense Counsel may be, those who seek to defraud our clients are just as skillful. Our adversaries know how, and when, to file suit against the insurance carriers. They know in what venue and in what order to file their suits. They have adapted to the amendments in the Regs, learned each carrier’s style of doing business, and they know how, and when, to best overload each carrier. They know that they can file a case on the last day before the statute of limitations (six years from when the claim accrues) and still have many years before any court will take up the case. These methods cost the carriers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, resulting in higher premiums and a lower quality of medical care.  On one side, the bad-acting providers, seeking to force cases to trial, overburdening the carriers and courts with superfluous motion practice or, even as insidious, failing to respond to Defense Counsel’s requests to resolve the matter in a timely fashion. The other side, the Defense Counsel, tired, ever-fighting, working to make the town safe for those just seeking a better quality of auto insurance coverage. Effectively, we are locked in a daily standoff. However, it does feel like a victory whenever we can resolve a case. We close a case and get a little closer to what No-Fault is really about. Matthew is a member of the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, where he defends against intentional/staged losses, as well as medical provider fraud. He has vast experience conducting Examinations Under Oath/Depositions.   SIU Spotlight, Issue 1, Vol. 1, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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.

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

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

Thought Leadership

SIDEBAR: News and Happenings

We are pleased to share that attorneys from our health care team have been selected to the 2026  New Jersey and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. Their dedication to clients and commitment to high-quality work continues to strengthen our firm! Please join us in congratulating: NJ Super Lawyers: Robert T. Evers and Justin F. Johnson NJ Super Lawyer Rising Stars: Nataliana A. Guida  2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers: Alyson J. Kirleis and Gary M. Samms 2026 Pennsylvania Rising Stars: Holli K. Archer and Daniel Dolente Victoria Scanlon (Scranton) was a faculty presenter at the 2026 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. She participated in the “Resident Symposium: Producing Quality Reports,” focusing her presentation on “How to Write a Great Report: Malpractice Lawyer’s Perspective.” Vicky, the only attorney presenter for this two-hour segment, was joined by several health care professionals including diagnostic radiologists, an interventional radiologist, an internal medicine physician, and a radiologist turned AI entrepreneur expert.  Matthew Keris (Scranton), President of the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM) and shareholder in our Scranton Health Care Department, presented an important and timely session titled “Keynote Address: A Conversation with RaDonda Vaught on Criminalizing Errors” at PAHCRM’s Annual Meeting in April. RaDonda is a former Tennessee nurse widely known for being criminally convicted in 2022 of negligent homicide and gross neglect after a 2017 fatal medication error at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Her case gained national attention because she was criminally prosecuted rather than just facing licensing board action, sparking debate over blaming individual nurses for systemic healthcare failures. Matt and RaDonda’s conversation explored one of the most consequential issues in health care risk management today—how systems respond to human error, and what it means for patient safety, accountability, and the professionals who serve on the front lines. Gary Samms was a panelist for a podcast hosted by the Medical Liability Monitor, “From Outliers to Pattern: The Increasing Predictability of Megaverdicts in the Med-Mal Industry – and How to Reduce the Likelihood of Getting Hit with One.” Gary discussed the changing megaverdict landscape and why “outlier” verdicts are becoming structural, in addition to how plaintiffs turn weaknesses into megaverdicts (including building emotional narrative and jury psychology). Thank you to our clients who joined us for our Trends in Health Care & Health Law seminar on May 14. Led by our Health Care Department Director and Assistant Director, Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the session explored key issues that are currently shaping outcomes in health care litigation. We owe a debt of gratitude to our esteemed guest speaker, Mary Ellen Nepps, Esq., Senior Counsel, University of Pennsylvania, who presented “Medical Malpractice Litigation: Driving Another Health Care Crisis in Pennsylvania.” And special thanks to our attorneys who presented and shared their insights, including John J. Hare and Holli Archer who discussed “Highlights in PA Medical Malpractice Law;” David Drake for his presentation, “From Claims to Courtroom: Key Trends in NJ Medical Malpractice Litigation;” and Matthew Keris with an “Update on Health Care Tech Discovery.” Thank you to all of our clients for entrusting us with your health care litigation. We are proud to partner with you as we defend your interests and navigate legal landscapes together.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Thought Leadership

Casual Care, Serious Consequences: How Informal Prescribing Can Trigger Medical Board Scrutiny

The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Consider the following scenario: in December 2025, a medical provider renewed a prescription for a long-standing telemedicine patient receiving a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance. This was not a violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Another provider doing the same action for an equally situated patient in March 2026 would be in violation. The casual prescriber who is not aware of newer regulatory requirements may have a more difficult time responding to a medical board complaint. Medicine is a highly-regulated helping profession. Without addressing the merits of this regulatory burden, the practice of medicine continues to see drastic changes impacting the everyday life of patient and provider. Telemedicine, COVID-19, and other advances and roadblocks, present a challenge to those saving lives while attempting to comply with the rules of practice. Physicians often discover—through real cases and the lens of regulatory expectations—that even well-intentioned informal help can be reinterpreted as stepping outside mandated professional boundaries, and seemingly harmless actions can be construed as deviations from required practice standards specifically outlined in Title 13, Chapter 35, Subchapters 7.1A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Title 45, "Professions and Occupations," of the New Jersey code governs the practice of medicine, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, and many other professional occupations. Section 9 specifically addresses the state board of medical examiners and allows for the creation of rules and regulations in Section 45:9-5.3. These regulations can be found in the New Jersey Administrative Code Title 13, Chapter 35. While broad in scope, Chapter 35 contains a subchapter dedicated to the administration and dispensing of prescription drugs. Such knowledge will arm physicians with the tools they need to prevent a negative outcome if a medical board complaint is filed. Likewise, attorneys must be familiar with these regulatory requirements when advising and defending providers. In New Jersey, N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A(a) requires that a practitioner conduct an examination and appropriately document the same within the medical record before dispensing drugs or issuing prescriptions. The examination must include an "appropriate history and physical examination," a diagnosis based upon the examination and any testing consistent with good medical care, the formulation of a therapeutic plan discussed with the patient, and the availability of appropriate follow-up care. There are only six exceptions to this requirement: In admission orders for a newly hospitalized patient For a patient of another physician for whom the practitioner is taking calls For continuation medications on a short-term basis for a new patient prior to the patient's first appointment For an established patient who, based on sound medical practice, the physician believes does not require a new examination before issuing a new prescription For a patient examined by a healthcare professional who is in collaborative practice with the practitioner When treatment is provided by a practitioner for an emergency medical condition Emergencies are also limited to situations where someone's health is in serious jeopardy, there is serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. During the COVID-19 pandemic, then New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued an executive order declaring a public health emergency and a state of emergency that allowed authorized prescribers to prescribe Schedule II controlled dangerous substances via telemedicine. The order was terminated when he left office earlier this year and the state reverted to the requirement of an initial in-person examination and quarterly in-person visits. With this return to prior regulatory requirements, practitioners subject to the jurisdiction of the board of medical examiners may benefit from a refresher on the regulatory limitations on their practice now that the pandemic-era flexibilities have ended. This new requirement may create confusion for prescribers and lead to casual prescribing of medication in violation of the regulations, even in the setting of recurrent telemedicine appointments as noted in the example above. Casual prescribing can take many forms: filling a prescription request from a friend or family member without an examination or contemporary medical record; using telemedicine to expand your practice without proper in-person appointments or documentation in the medical record; failing to ensure appropriate follow-up care for a "one time" prescription; etc. Although not all board complaints end in a publicly available opinion, serious deviations from regulatory requirements can shine a light on practices that will require action by the board if a complaint is received. Consider the following cases: In October 2025, the board issued a final consent order in an administrative action where a doctor provided opioids without examination and his license was permanently revoked. In re Robert Dela Gente, D.O., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Oct. 21, 2025. Criminal charges were filed (though that is not always the case). In a September 2025 consent order, a physician was reprimanded for "prescribing opioids several months in advance without the proper patient follow-up..." and explained that they did so for "patients who can not pay for multiple visits to refill medications." In re A/an E. Schultz, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Sept. 25, 2025. Another physician was suspended and placed on probation in a consent order for prescribing three patients the weight-loss medication "Ozempic" via text messages through a website called "Push Health" and without any further communication with the patients or taking a medical history. In re Laura E. Purdy, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Aug. 29, 2025. A June 2025 interim consent order required a "full evaluation and assessment of [a physician's] general knowledge and skill, with specific emphasis on his knowledge of and ability to safely prescribe [controlled dangerous substances]" due to his failure to review a patient's prior medical history and medical record, assess and review the prescription monitoring program before prescribing CDS, and conduct random urine screens on a patient that tested positive for CDS upon admission to his practice because "he trusted the patient." In re Donald Oh, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs June 2, 2025. Each of these examples demonstrate a failure to follow strict procedure regardless of the intention. Failing to follow procedure secondary to good intentions, such as considering a patient's financial constraints, trust in the patient, or utilizing a new telemedicine service platform, will not be a defense to a board complaint. Especially when practicing via telemedicine, practitioners must ensure they are adhering to the appropriate regulatory standard. A provider who calls in a prescription for a traveling friend or family member or agrees to prescribe medication for individuals using the newest phone app will have a hard time meeting the requirements of N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A. Even if a history was taken, a "therapeutic plan" was created, and "follow up care" was provided, the prescriber would still not be in compliance with the regulation without an in-person examination. In our opening hypothetical, the prescriber's behavior did not change between December and March; however, the legal shift in the regulatory landscape made once acceptable behavior a violation as a required examination did not occur. When complaints are made with regard to informal prescribing, the board has discretion to employ measures to encourage compliance in lieu of formal proceedings such as a private, written warning; suspending fines subject to continuing compliance; medical or professional treatment as may be necessary; medical or diagnostic testing and monitoring; skills assessment; corrective training; participation in outreach programming; or contribution to the consumer fraud protection fund. The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Even compliant providers who had not conducted an in-person examination for telemedicine patients during the COVID-19 emergency would be in violation of the regulations as of January 2026 for the same practice. Practitioners should be diligent in adhering to the prescribing rules to avoid sanctions related to casual care. Likewise, attorneys advising or defending practitioners before the board must be aware of the in-person examination requirements for prescribing in New Jersey whether the care in question took place in-person or in a telemedicine setting. Reprinted with permission from the April 22, 2026 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal. ©2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Dental Malpractice

For health care providers and insurers navigating the complexities of dental malpractice risk, Marshall Dennehey delivers a disciplined, end‑to‑end defense built on deep clinical understanding and litigation experience. Our health care litigators routinely represent general dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, and endodontists at every stage of a claim—from early risk assessment and pre‑suit strategy through trial and appeal—helping clients manage exposure while protecting professional reputations. With a strong command of applicable standards of care across both routine and advanced procedures, our team is well positioned to address high‑severity allegations such as surgical complications, permanent nerve injury, infection, missed oral cancer diagnoses, and jaw fractures. We also guide providers through licensing board matters, offering measured, practical counsel aligned with clinical realities. “Our priority is to give providers and their insurers clarity and control from day one,” said Robin Snyder, director of our Health Care Department. “By combining early expert insight with a practical understanding of clinical decision‑making, we are able to defend claims effectively while helping clients achieve timely, favorable outcomes.”