.

Ryan is a member of the firm’s Health Care Department, where he focuses his practice on defending physicians and health care organizations such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and various other health systems against medical malpractice claims and lawsuits. He works closely with clients in defending and guiding them through all phases of litigation. In addition to handling complex medical malpractice and skilled nursing home matters, Ryan actively handles child welfare cases involving severe allegations of sexual and physical abuse.

Born and raised in Philadelphia, Ryan stayed true to his roots by attending Temple University for both undergraduate and law school degrees. He was a member of the American Constitution Society and Student Bar Association during law school. Ryan clerked for the Honorable Steven C. Tolliver in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and also spent time in the Major Trial Division at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.

Outside of the office, Ryan is an avid basketball fan who plays in several recreational leagues and follows the NBA. When not on the basketball court, you may find him at a music festival or out hiking.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2022)
    • Temple University (B.B.A., 2018)
    • Pennsylvania, 2022
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained a dismissal for all claims asserted against a nonprofit mental health services provider. The claims by a former resident and treatment recipient spanned multiple years and were asserted across separate actions. The claimant alleged various tort-based causes of action arising from their residency and interactions with staff. We obtained an initial dismissal in one of the two matters through a motion for judgment on the pleadings and subsequently leveraged that ruling to file a vexatious litigant motion in the second action, which the court granted. The latter order effectively bars the plaintiff from initiating any future litigation against our insured or its employees involving the same or related claims. This outcome brings finality to protracted litigation and protects the client from continued repetitive and meritless claims, which had caused them significant reputational and financial losses.
    • ​Part of the defense team that successfully obtained a defense verdict during arbitration in a medical malpractice case. Our client performed major reconstructive surgery for a patient with a highly complex and longstanding history of severe right foot problems. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly evaluate the patient and perform the surgery at issue, causing complications that required three additional surgeries to correct. We argued that the plaintiff's postoperative course, including the clinical manifestations that developed and the subsequent surgeries he received, constituted a series of known complications/outcomes regarding the complex surgery he underwent. An arbitration verdict was made in favor of our client.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Received in a Nursing Home Malpractice Case

We received summary judgment in the defendant’s favor in a nursing home malpractice case. The plaintiff claimed that the facility failed to prevent various conditions and injuries during the resident’s admission—such as UTI/sepsis, acute kidney injury/metabolic encephalopathy, dehydration and failure to thrive/weight loss, and skin breakdown. The plaintiff alleged these developments resulted in numerous damages, including, but not limited to, death. Our motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant sought dismissal on the grounds that the facility held immunity pursuant to the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff hotly disputed the issue. Ultimately, several rounds of briefing were required to achieve the ruling in the facility’s favor.

Thought Leadership

View all

The Quarterly Dose

Isn’t That Wunderly? How the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Mental Health Procedures Act Positively Impacts Treatment Providers

November 1, 2025

On October 23, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, reconfirmed the established reach of the immunity afforded by the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), once again noting that “medical treatment that is coincident to mental health treatment” falls within the ambit of its protections. Wunderly v. St. Luke’s Hospital of Bethlehem, --- A.3d ---, 2025 WL 2988503 (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025). Wunderly stems from a situation involving a patient who was involuntarily admitted to a St. Luke’s Hospital facility for dementia and aggression and who had stage I decubitus ulcers upon admission. While treating the whole person, the hospital demonstrated that the treatment of the patient’s ulcers was “coincident” to the main course of treatment, which was with respect to his mental health. Indeed, the Court recognized that “he was involuntarily admitted to St. Luke’s under Section 302 for dementia-related aggression and remained in its care under Section 303.” Wunderly, 2025 WL 2988503. While being treated, his wound issues worsened, and he was eventually transferred to another facility where he died ten days later. His estate filed suit against St. Luke’s Hospital and its affiliates, asserting that the providers were negligent in the decedent’s care and treatment. At the trial level, the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings for the hospital and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims based on immunity under the MHPA enjoyed by “those individuals and institutions that provide treatment to mentally ill patients.” 50 P.S. § 7114. The decision was affirmed by the Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider the scope of additional care provided by St. Luke’s Hospital during the decedent’s admission and whether it constituted “treatment” under the MHPA. In determining that the additional care (i.e., treatment for pressure-related skin-breakdown and wounds) constitutes “treatment” under the MHPA, the Court explained that the Act is not limited to care that is directly related to a patient’s mental status. Rather, “the legislature intended a broader meaning of treatment that includes medical care `coincident to mental health care’ as well as `care and other services that supplement treatment’ in order to promote the recovery of the patient from mental illness.” Wunderly, 2025 WL 2988503 (citing Allen v. Montgomery Hospital, 696 A.2d 1175, 1179 (Pa. 1997). The Court noted the General Assembly’s policy-based decision to apply the MHPA to “treatment” in various areas aimed at whole-person health, “such as diet, heat, light, sanitary facilities, clothing, recreation, education and medical care as are necessary to maintain decent, safe and healthful living conditions.” Id. Toward that end, the MHPA grants immunity to ensure the “willingness of doctors [and] hospitals to provide needed medical care to a mentally ill patient.” Id. However, in reaching its decision that the MHPA immunity applies to “medical treatment coincident to mental health treatment,” the Court noted that there is no bright-line rule when “coincident” begins or ends. “While it is difficult to enounce specific parameters given the fact-specific nature of these cases, there will be circumstances where medical treatment is so tenuously connected to the mental health treatment that the [i]mmunity [p]rovision does not apply. The definitions of `treatment’ and `adequate treatment’ are broad but not without limitation.” Id. Stated differently, medical treatment rendered by health care providers to mental health patients may be within the scope of the MHPA if it is something that could be anticipated or expected to occur given the patient’s status. Despite the lack of a bright-line rule, the effect of the Wunderly decision is certainly significant. Health care providers who are in the front lines of the Commonwealth’s current mental health crisis now likely have a stronger defense to professional liability claims premised on care involving medical treatment interwoven with care for a patient’s mental health issues. To ensure the availability of the immunity protections afforded by the MHPA, it is a best practice to document and record in detail how the treatment of any physical ailment is related to or connected with a patient’s mental health care. By doing so, a health care provider will be best positioned in defending against any future claim.  The Quarterly Dose – November 2025, 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. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney