.

Sharon A. Campbell-Suplee

Portrait of Sharon A. Campbell-Suplee

In her role as Office Managing Attorney, Sharon is responsible for the daily operations of the Mount Laurel office, including supervision of its 100-plus employees. As a member of the Health Care Department, she concentrates her practice in medical malpractice and nursing home negligence, and has represented a large number of long-term care and sub-acute rehabilitation facilities.

Sharon has tried multiple cases to verdict for health care clients. She also regularly assists clients in resolving cases through arbitration and mediation.
 
Sharon received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Rutgers College, Rutgers University. She went on to obtain her juris doctor from Widener University School of Law. Upon graduation from law school, Sharon served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Mark A. Sullivan, Jr., J.S.C., Law Division, Superior Court of New Jersey, in Monmouth County. After completion of her judicial clerkship, Sharon began her legal career in private practice in the area of insurance defense.  

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1995)
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.A., 1992)
    • New Jersey, 1995
    • Successfully defended a claim for failure to diagnose infectious endocarditis after a periodontal procedure. It was asserted at trial that our client, the periodontist who performed the surgery, and the co-defendant dentist failed to recognize signs and symptoms of potential infectious endocarditis in post-op interactions with the plaintiff. The claim also alleged that had the plaintiff been diagnosed sooner, he would not have required open heart surgery and could have successfully been treated with antibiotics only. We argued that the appropriate standard of care was followed and that the plaintiff’s damages were unrelated to the care and treatment provided by their client.
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Preparing A Claim for Trial: How Recent Issues, Decisions and Trends Are Impacting Litigation Outcomes, client webinar, June 4, 2020
    • Nursing Home Mock Trial: Intricacies of an Asphyxiation Case, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminar, November 19, 2015

Results

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

On the Pulse… Mount Laurel Office: A Cornerstone of Defense Litigation in South Jersey for Over 40 Years

June 30, 2026

Marshall Dennehey established its first office in southern New Jersey in 1984. Since that time, the “South Jersey” office, now located in Mount Laurel, has grown to be the second largest Marshall Dennehey office outside of Philadelphia. With 56 attorneys and approximately 75 support staff, this office fully services our clients across the spectrum of defense litigation in South Jersey. As one of the largest law offices primarily dedicated to South Jersey, we are able to provide our clients an unparalleled depth of experience and knowledge, reinforced by long-standing relationships with the local bar and bench.  The success of this office is based upon many factors, not the least of which is the depth of talent and experience we offer our clients. Our office is composed of many long-time residents of New Jersey, and we have the benefit of being staffed by individuals who have dedicated their careers to Marshall Dennehey, having worked for the firm for over 20, and in some cases, over 30 years. Our office administrator, Sheila Stanley, has been with the firm for 40 years and is an invaluable leader. Coupled with the broad-based resources and experience of the firm, we are able to provide our clients with the highest level of defense litigation support in areas including professional liability, health care liability, casualty, and workers’ compensation. The Mount Laurel Casualty Group makes up the largest group of attorneys in our office.  Supervised by Barbara Davis, this group includes accomplished, long-time shareholders and trial attorneys who handle cases across the casualty spectrum. They are supported by a skilled group of associates who routinely sit second chair and otherwise support trial counsel at every level. Jeffrey Rapattoni, Assistant Director of the firm’s Casualty Department, serves as Chair of both the SIU/Fraud Litigation Group and the PIP Litigation Group. Our attorneys offer our clients aggressive and specialized knowledge evidenced by their record of success. Our professional liability group, the second largest in the firm behind Philadelphia, handles a broad range of matters, from architectural, engineering, and construction defect litigation, to real estate liability, public entity and civil rights litigation, and employment law. Our PL group is supervised by Matthew Behr, and is anchored by seasoned litigators and talented associates. The Mount Laurel Worker’s Compensation Group is led by Bob Fitzgerald, who has been with the firm for 25 years. He leads a successful team of attorneys who are well known within the worker’s compensation bench and bar in South Jersey, and their longevity and high regard within the community affords our clients the highest level of service.  Our Health Care Group is led by Lynne Nahmani, who has been with the firm since law school -- over 35 years. The Health Care Group defends and routinely tries cases including medical malpractice, hospital/acute care malpractice, long term care litigation, nursing malpractice, dental malpractice, allied health professionals' malpractice, and professional board matters, among others.  Collaboration has always been a cornerstone of the culture of Marshall Dennehey, and this is nowhere more evident than in the Mount Laurel office. While our attorneys generally practice within their groups, the benefit of having a broad base of litigators allows us to work as a cross-functional team when needed. This provides our clients with the benefits of diverse expertise and collaboration and provides our attorneys with mutual resources at their fingertips. In addition, it allows for our attorneys to continue to learn from each other and work together to continue to lead the market in South Jersey.  

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.