The attorneys in our Medical Malpractice Practice defend medical professionals and providers in all areas of health care liability, ranging from medical malpractice and credentialing and licensing issues to investigations involving governmental agencies. Our clients include:
- Physicians
- Registered nurses
- Certified registered nurse anesthetists
- Dentists
- Oral surgeons and other specialties
- Midwives
- Psychologists
- Psychiatrists
- Podiatrists
- Chiropractors
- Physical therapists
- Occupational therapists
- Physician assistants
- Anesthesiologists
- Optometrists
- Veterinarians
- Social workers
In addition, we count many health care institutions among our clients, including:
- Hospitals
- Health systems
- Surgical centers
- Psychiatric and behavioral health facilities
- Health clinics
- Veterinary practices
- Addiction services
- Medical staffing corporations
The health care industry is constantly evolving, and we recognize the need to remain abreast of these changes in order to best serve our clients. Our attorneys have a strong command of the complex regulations and operational challenges facing providers, and several bring valuable clinical experience as former health care professionals.
Our health care attorneys have a reputation for excellence and dedication to defending all manner of professionals, hospitals and other entities in the health care environment. Clients benefit from a unique blend of experienced and dedicated litigators providing widespread geographical coverage throughout Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, with attorneys also licensed in neighboring jurisdictions.
By collaborating with our clients early in the litigation process, we can determine their expectations and counsel them as the case develops. While every case is unique and each client has different needs, we prioritize timely, frequent and substantive communication in our approach to defending their interests and achieving desired results.
We take great pride in the depth of litigation experience our firm offers and will not hesitate to try cases to verdict and challenge issues at the appellate level. Our experienced bench of trial attorneys is complemented by a strong group of younger attorneys focused on honing their litigation skills. We are committed to the continued development of all of our attorneys and have invested in training and mentoring programs that will enable us to have a strong bar for years to come.
Results
Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial
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
The Quarterly Dose
Highlights in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law: Expansion of Liability, Nuclear Verdicts, and Emerging Litigation Trends
August 26, 2026
Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice landscape has undergone significant changes. In the last two years, courts, litigants, insurers, and health care providers have faced a dramatic rise in nuclear verdicts, evolving juror attitudes, aggressive plaintiff advertising, third-party litigation funding, and increasingly complex procedural challenges. These developments have not only reshaped medical malpractice litigation, but have also intensified concerns about health care access, insurance costs, and Pennsylvania’s legal climate. The Expansion of Liability and the Rise of Nuclear Verdicts One of the most significant trends in medical malpractice litigation is the expansion of liability and the rise of so-called “nuclear verdicts” (generally speaking, personal injury verdicts in excess of $10 million). Nationally, 2025 set the all-time record with 140 nuclear verdicts, including 30 thermonuclear verdicts (above $100 million) and five verdicts exceeding $1 billion. This continued a steady upward trend from 108 nuclear verdicts in 2024 and 91 in 2023. Pennsylvania has exceeded the national trend. From June 2021 to May 2026, the Commonwealth had 42 nuclear verdicts, with 29 occurring in Philadelphia alone. Medical malpractice cases account for 17 of those 42 verdicts. Philadelphia remains the epicenter of large medical malpractice awards, producing 11 of the state’s 17 medical malpractice nuclear verdictss. Other excessive malpractice verdicts have occurred in York, Beaver, Chester, Delaware, and Luzerne counties. Although appellate courts have occasionally reduced excessive awards, the overall trend is concerning. Only five of Pennsylvania’s 42 nuclear verdicts have been reversed or reduced. In medical malpractice cases, notable examples include: Newlin v. Vita Healthcare Group – $19 million verdict overturned. Dawson v. Bayada Home Health Care – $14 million verdict remitted to $8 million. What Is Driving Large Verdicts? Legal analysts increasingly point to the COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst for changing juror perspectives and expanded liability. The pandemic created what many describe as twin sensitivities: a heightened concern for safety and risk prevention, and increased skepticism toward corporations and institutions. These attitudes align closely with the plaintiff-oriented “reptile” litigation strategy, which aims to generate juror anger by framing a corporate defendant’s alleged actions as a threat to community safety. Another factor frequently cited in discussions about large verdicts is a growing skepticism toward institutions and large organizations. In many cases, jurors may view corporations, hospitals, insurers, and other well-resourced entities as being in a better position to prevent harm and protect the public. As a result, they may hold these organizations to particularly high (and in many cases unrealistic) standards of conduct and accountability. The Impact of Changing Jury Demographics Demographic changes are also influencing litigation outcomes. Millennials represent the largest cohort and may comprise up to 40% of many jury pools. Studies suggest they are the most likely to award large verdicts as they are highly safety-conscious due to experiences such as 9/11, school shootings, and COVID-19, and generally less trusting of large institutions, corporations, and established systems. Equally important is the emergence of what jury consultants describe as “vulnerable jurors” – individuals who have recently experienced significant financial, medical, or personal hardship. The economic and health-related disruptions of the pandemic have expanded this segment of the population. Notably, political affiliation has become a less reliable predictor of defense-oriented verdicts. Jurors at both political extremes may be receptive to plaintiffs’ arguments, particularly when they perceive corporate defendants as part of a powerful establishment. Lawyer Advertising and the Litigation Economy Philadelphia has become one of the most heavily advertised legal markets in the country. According to the 2025-2026 Judicial Hellholes report, plaintiffs’ firms reportedly spent $76.6 million on more than 634,000 advertisements in the region. Billboard, television, radio, and digital marketing campaigns have become nearly unavoidable throughout the metropolitan area. Critics argue that extensive advertising creates a self-reinforcing cycle by: Encouraging potential plaintiffs to pursue claims. Increasing settlement demands. Raising expectations regarding verdict values. Expanding public awareness of litigation opportunities. Consequences for Insurance and Health Care The rise in nuclear verdicts has had substantial financial consequences. As verdict severity rises, liability insurance becomes both more expensive and more difficult to obtain. Insurers increasingly report reduced capacity, higher premiums, and more restrictive underwriting practices. For health care providers already facing workforce shortages, reimbursement pressures and rising operational costs, increased malpractice exposure creates additional strain. The result may ultimately affect patient access to care, particularly in underserved or rural communities. The Legal Marketplace: Workforce Challenges Although the number of lawyers increased dramatically throughout the 20th century, growth has slowed considerably since 2000. Am Law 200 firms have experienced a net loss of litigators in recent years, and trends suggest that demand for experienced trial attorneys may increasingly outpace supply, particularly in high-exposure litigation areas such as medical malpractice defense. Looking Ahead Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice environment is undergoing a profound transformation. Rising nuclear verdicts, evolving juror attitudes, aggressive advertising, and procedural complexities are reshaping the risk landscape for health care providers, insurers, and defense counsel. As courts, legislators, and industry stakeholders consider potential reforms, medical malpractice practitioners must remain vigilant. Success increasingly depends not only on the merits of a case, but also on understanding changing jury behavior, preserving appellate issues, and navigating a legal environment that continues to expand the boundaries of liability.
The Quarterly Dose
Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies Legal Standard for Jury Instruction on Increased Risk of Harm in Medical Malpractice Cases
June 11, 2026
Matthews v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Penn., 2026 WL 537727 (Unpublished) (Feb. 26, 2026) In this appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania clarified in an important unpublished opinion, the requirements for plaintiffs to obtain a jury instruction on increased risk of harm in medical malpractice actions. At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony from a maternal fetal medicine expert that the attending physicians deviated from the standard of care by delaying C-section delivery after monitoring fetal heart rate decelerations. The plaintiff also elicited testimony from a pediatric neurologist that minor-plaintiff was at risk for stroke based on diminished fetal heart tracings and blood flow. Importantly, the plaintiff failed to present any expert testimony that the defendants’ alleged failure to timely initiate a C-section delivery caused or increased the risk of harm of minor-plaintiff’s injury. Prior to the jury charge, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for an instruction on increased risk of harm. Ultimately, the jury found that the defendants’ conduct was not the factual cause of minor-plaintiff’s harm and awarded no damages. The plaintiff appealed, asserting that the trial court’s decision to not charge the jury on increased risk of harm was a clear abuse of discretion and error of law. The Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions provide for a “relaxed” causation charge under specific circumstances. This instruction on increased risk of harm provides, in relevant part, as follows: Where the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the negligent act or failure to act or delay on the part of the defendant has increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff, this testimony, if found credible, provides a sufficient basis from which you may find that the negligence was a factual cause of the injuries sustained. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 14.20. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying plaintiff’s request for an instruction on increased risk of harm. The court held that in order for plaintiffs to be entitled to the jury charge, they must provide expert testimony, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the acts and omissions complained of could cause the type of harm suffered. Since the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony that the defendants’ alleged failure to timely initiate C-section delivery caused or increased the risk of harm of the brain injury suffered by minor-plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to the increased risk of harm instruction at trial. The Superior Court’s decision is helpful for health care defendants, as it clarifies the legal standard necessary for plaintiffs to demonstrate a basis for instructing the jury on increased risk of harm, which has been diluted over time. Litigants in medical malpractice cases should cautiously analyze each element of expert testimony at trial to ensure this standard has been satisfied when it is anticipated the plaintiff will request an instruction on increased risk of harm.
