.

Susan L. Derasmo

Portrait of Susan L. Derasmo

Susan focuses her practice on the defense of physicians, nurses, health care providers, and medical facilities in medical malpractice claims.

Prior to joining the firm, Susan completed an extended clerkship with the Honorable Kathleen A. Sheedy, J.S.C. in the Monmouth County Superior Court. In this role, Susan assisted with managing a high-volume docket, which encompassed nearly all of the medical malpractice cases in addition to 13 civil dockets. Susan managed the bi-weekly motion calendar, conducted extensive legal research on a variety of civil matters, assisted in drafting bench opinions, and drafted statements of reasons for nearly every motion before the Court. She also participated in the small claims mediation program as a facilitator, furthering her dispute resolution skills. Throughout her clerkship, Susan gained extensive experience with and exposure to all phases of civil litigation, including discovery disputes, motion practice and oral argument, evidentiary hearings, settlement conferences, and trial preparation.

Susan earned her juris doctorate from Rutgers Law School – Newark. While in law school, she competed as a member of the Rutgers National Appellate Advocacy Team, served as the Managing Research Editor for the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, and was on the Executive Board of the Student Bar Association, among other organizations. Additionally, Susan served as a Teaching Assistant for courses in Evidence and Trial Presentation and Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research Skills.

Outside of work, Susan enjoys cooking, traveling, attending sporting events, concerts, and shows, and spending time with friends and family.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2024)
    • Teachers College, Columbia University (M.A., 2021)
    • Elon University (B.A., cum laude, 2020)
    • New Jersey, 2025
    • New Jersey State Bar Association, Medical Malpractice Committee 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.