.

Megan J. Nelson

Associate

MJNelson@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Megan J. Nelson

Megan devotes her practice to representing hospitals, physicians, nurses, long-term care facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and other healthcare providers in the defense of medical malpractice and negligence claims, along with premises and general liability claims.

Megan also represents nurses and other medical providers who are facing administrative or regulatory discipline by their governing medical licensing boards.

In addition to health care defense, Megan assists hospitals, long-term care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities with the initiation of petitions for determination of incapacity and the appointment of plenary guardians for patients who are unable to make their own medical and financial decisions. Megan also assists hospitals, long-term care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities with patients and family who "stay against medical advice."

Megan began her career as a firefighter for her hometown volunteer fire department and has utilized her knowledge as a firefighter to represent fire academies in lawsuits.

Megan has been a Registered Nurse since 2010. Before becoming a lawyer, she worked as a neonatal and pediatric critical care nurse in various settings, including the neonatal intensive care unit, pediatric intensive care unit, pediatric cardiac intensive care unit, and pediatric emergency room. She received The Daisy Award For Extraordinary Nurses in August 2013. Her experience also included patients on ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) and cardiac bypass. Megan's background in nursing helps to bridge the gap between medicine and the law.

Megan is a frequent lecturer on medical and nursing topics, including incident reporting, guardianships, and AI (artificial intelligence). She is a member of the Florida State Guardianship Association, Central Florida Medical Malpractice Claims Council, and the Orange County Bar Association.

Megan graduated from Del Mar College with an Associate's Degree in Nursing and Texas A&M University Corpus Christi with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. Megan graduated cum laude from Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law with a Juris Doctor.

When she is not working, Megan volunteers her time at The Sanctuary at Lakota Farms, where she helps care for horses that have been rescued.

    • Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2019)
    • Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (B.S., 2014)
    • Del Mar College (ADN, 2009)
    • Florida, 2019
    • Central Florida Medical Malpractice Claims Council
    • Florida State Guardianship Association
    • Orange County Bar Association
    • Florida Nursing License
    • The Latest on Medical AI Innovation, Legal Liability and Claims, Florida Society for Healthcare Risk Management & Patient Safety Annual Meeting & Education Conference, Orlando, FL, August 14, 2025
    • Tort Reform: Where Do We Go From Here?, Florida Society for Healthcare Risk Management & Patient Safety Annual Meeting & Education Conference, Orlando, FL, August 16, 2024
    • Adversity in the World of Adverse Incident Reporting: A Panel Discussion on Reporting Requirements and Addressing Related Discovery, Florida Society for Healthcare Risk Management & Patient Safety Annual Meeting & Education Conference, Orlando, FL, August 13, 2021
    • Was successful in having a Florida Rule 5.900 Petition for Expedited Judicial Intervention Concerning Medical Treatment Procedure granted. The alleged incapacitated person had been medically cleared for discharge to a skilled nursing facility. However, his brother, who had been appointed as the health care surrogate and power of attorney, had refused to consent to his brother's transfer to any skilled nursing facility. After numerous unsuccessful attempts by the hospital case management team to transfer the patient, Megan was retained to file a Florida Rule 5.900 Petition for Expedited Judicial Intervention Concerning Medical Treatment Procedures. After the emergency evidentiary hearing, the court granted the petition and ordered the brother to consent to the transfer of the patient to a skilled nursing facility.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment for Daycare Center in Wrongful Death Case.

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment related to the duty owed to a minor business invitee in an alleged wrongful death. The plaintiff, the personal representative of the estate of a minor, filed a wrongful death claim alleging the defendant daycare center breached its duty to exercise the reasonable care owed to the minor while he was under the care and supervision of the center. The plaintiff alleged the defendant center’s employees failed to render aid when the minor collapsed, including failing to train its employees, and failing to notify emergency personnel in a timely manner. We successfully argued that the defendant did not breach its duty to exercise reasonable medical care as its employees were CPR certified and immediately responded when an employee witnessed the incident. The mother of the minor arrived immediately after the collapse and held onto him until EMS arrived. The call to the EMS team was made within three minutes of the collapse and the employees reassessed the minor while he was in the mother’s arms and determined the minor was breathing. The minor was breathing until EMS arrived. Sadly, the minor passed away of natural causes. After reviewing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and hearing our argument, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment, and the case was dismissed.

Thought Leadership

View all

Documentation Do’s and Don’ts: Know What Really Matters

January 1, 2026

“Document, document, document!” is the mantra of healthcare risk management. If it was not documented, did it really happen? If it was documented, was it documented properly? Knowing the right and wrong ways to document can make the difference when defending a malpractice claim or conducting a root cause investigation.

Case Law Alerts

Claims for a Hospital’s Negligent Credentialing Must Be Addressed With Sufficient Facts in a Corroborating Expert Affidavit During the Presuit Investigation Period

October 1, 2025

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a motion to dismiss related to a negligent credentialing claim on the basis that the presuit corroborating expert affidavit was deficient. After the plaintiff sustained a left ankle fracture, he was referred to a board-certified foot and ankle surgeon, Dimitry Sandler, DPM, who recommended undergoing a total ankle replacement surgery. The operation was performed at Mariners Hospital, Inc. Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced loss of ankle function, wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis and chronic infections.  The plaintiff served a notice of intent on Dr. Sandler and Mariners Hospital. Included with the notice of intent was the corroborating expert affidavit by a board-certified foot and ankle surgeon, Matthew Sorenson, DPM. Dr. Sorenson’s opinions related to Dr. Sandler’s negligence were listed in the affidavit. In addition, Dr. Sorenson opined that: Mariners Hospital, Inc. fell below applicable standards of care for credentialing surgeons in credentialing and authorizing Dr. Sandler to perform a total ankle replacement procedure. It is therefore my opinion within reasonable medical probability that Mariners Hospital, Inc. fell below applicable standards of care in their supervision and credentialing of Dr. Sandler and was therefore negligent, and that this negligence resulted in injury to Mr. Tomas as summarized above. A corroborating expert affidavit must sufficiently indicate the manner in which the defendant allegedly deviated from the standard of care and must provide adequate information for the defendant to evaluate the merits of the claim.  In addition, Florida Statute 766.102(7) provides the requirements for expert witnesses testifying on the standard of care as to a hospital, health care facility or medical facility. An expert who provides opinions based on the standard of care as to administrative and other non-clinical issues must have substantial knowledge, through training and experience, concerning the standard of care for the type of facility the expert is providing opinions on.  The Third District Court of Appeal determined that the corroborating expert affidavit was devoid of detail as to the administrative standard of care related to credentialing. The court affirmed the finding that the affidavit was deficient, stating: “To conclude otherwise would allow every plaintiff to automatically transform any individual medical malpractice claim against a physician with credentials or privileges into an administrative claim without complying with the safeguards of section 766.102(7).” Defendants should analyze any counts related to agency theories to determine if any administrative or non-clinical issues have been alleged or insinuated (i.e., negligent credentialing, negligent hiring, etc.). A plaintiff can still allege vicarious liability related to the medical negligence. However, any additional administrative claims will need to have been addressed in the corroborating expert affidavit by a qualified expert. If they are not, a motion to dismiss for failure to presuit should be filed.   Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

News

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

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

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.

News

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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. 

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.

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.