.

The Quarterly Dose

SIDEBAR: News and Happenings

The Quarterly Dose – February 2026

February 25, 2026

NEWS

Congratulations are in order for our Department’s newly elected shareholders! Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership in advancing the interests of our clients and strengthening our firm.

We continue to grow our health care team. Please join us in welcoming the following associates:

HAPPENINGS

Robert Aldrich and Melissa Dziak, shareholders in our Scranton office, presented a webinar hosted by the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management. In “Navigating The Digital Shift: Balancing The Benefits And Legal Risks of Patient Portals,” Rob and Missy discussed mitigation strategies for managing risks associated with the use of patient portals and how the reliance on them impacts medical malpractice laws.

Rob and Missy are also featured speakers at the upcoming Crittenden Medical Liability Conference in Savannah, Georgia, in April. Their presentation, “Patient Portals: The Benefits and Legal Risks,” will examine common exposure areas related to patient portals, including messaging, response times, documentation and data security. Learn more here.

As President of the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management, Matthew Keris will sit down with RaDonda Vaught at the PAHCRM 2026 Annual Meeting in April. A medication error by Mrs. Vaught ended the life of a patient in 2017, making her the subject of one of the highest-profile healthcare criminal cases in recent years. Matt will hold a discussion with her on the implications of the legal actions that followed and how she became a passionate advocate for safety and improvement. Find out more here.

Megan Nelson, an associate in our Orlando office, contributed commentary to an article featured in Healthcare Risk Management magazine on best practices and common pitfalls in clinical documentation. Read the article here.

Robert Evers, shareholder in our Roseland office, presented to surgical fellows and senior residents at Rutgers Health on best practices to mitigate medical malpractice risks. He also delivered a similar presentation to oral surgeons at Warren Oral Surgery Group.


Wishing a Warm Farewell to Our Retirees

Jeff Bates retired on December 31, 2025. Jeff was a shareholder in our Philadelphia office and his “open door” will be greatly missed. Throughout his career, Jeff tried cases, defended professionals in disciplinary board matters and always served as a tremendous mentor.

Brad Blystone also retired at the end of December. He led the Health Care group in Orlando and served as the office’s Managing Attorney. Brad’s career was defined by integrity, wisdom and unwavering advocacy. He had the reputation not only as a skilled attorney, but also as a trusted counselor and mentor.

We extend our heartfelt appreciation and sincere gratitude as Jeff and Brad conclude their service and begin a well-earned retirement!


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.