.

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
    • 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

    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. 

    blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

    Result

    Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

    News

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

    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. 

    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

    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