.

Gary is a highly skilled trial attorney who has successfully handled more than 200 major jury trials throughout his career. With a primary focus on the health care industry, he represents doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, hospitals, and facilities of all types when facing catastrophic outcomes and medical malpractice lawsuits. Gary divides his time between our King of Prussia and Philadelphia offices. 

Gary is also experienced in complex civil litigation matters encompassing all areas of professional liability, sexual assault, property litigation and intellectual property. Representing clients in the federal and state courts, he has successfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has handled scores of bench trials, arbitrations and mediations. He serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and is a trained mediator.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Gary chaired the Professional Liability and Catastrophic Loss practice groups at a well-known Philadelphia-based law firm. Gary was named one of Pennsylvania's Top 100 Lawyers and one of Philadelphia's Top 100 Lawyers five times, and has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer since 2006 by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers®. He is also recognized in the 2025 and 2024 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® for professional malpractice law – defendants.

Outside of the courtroom, Gary is a distinguished speaker and lecturer on litigation topics including trial tactics, expert selection and cross-examination. He has also been featured on Fox Business News' "Xpert Forum" program.

    • University of Arkansas School of Law
    • West Chester University
    • Pennsylvania, 1990
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • The Legal Intelligencer – Professional Excellence Award – “Distinguished Leader” (2020)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2006-2026; Top 100 in Pennsylvania, 2009-2011, 2013-2014; Top 100 in Philadelphia, 2009-2011, 2013-2014)
    • Suburban Life Magazine – Top Attorneys (2013-2022)
    • American Bar Association
    • American Inns of Court
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained a Non-Suit in a wrongful death case in Delaware County. The Court found upon Motion that there was no link to causation after extensive, nuanced argument. (2025)
    • After an 11-day trial, obtained a defense verdict on behalf of four physicians and a major teaching hospital in Philadelphia. The medical malpractice action involved the labor and delivery of a baby later alleged to have a hypoxic birth injury that caused developmental delays and permanent brain damage, among other issues. The plaintiffs’ experts boarded $21 million in future medical costs to take care of the child and the demand in the pretrial was commensurate with those numbers. (2025)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict in Philadelphia on behalf of a prominent orthopedic surgeon accused of inappropriate touching of a patient. The plaintiff alleged that the physician inappropriately touched her during a preoperative examination for bilateral hip surgery. Through meticulous cross-examination and persuasive argument, the defense team achieved a complete victory. (2025)
    • Obtained a dismissal in the middle of trial after cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses in a case involving a former NFL player and opera singer who contended they had permanent injuries after knee surgery and the failure to diagnose a pseudoaneurysm. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to dismiss Gary and his client prior to the end of their case to prevent him from participating in the trial further, and decided to limit their recovery to the other defendants due to the successful cross-examination. (2025)
    • Secured a medical malpractice defense verdict in a complex urosepsis case where the damages included allegations of neurological sequelae and cognitive deficits. The trial was marked by aggressive cross-examination of expert witnesses and a deep dive into comprehensive neurological records and literature. (2025)
    • Received a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a six-day trial in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs had contended the anesthesiologist failed to deal with internal bleeding, blood pressure issues and failed to communicate with the surgeon during a Cesarean section and in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), leading to the plaintiff almost bleeding out and causing the loss of her uterus during an emergency hysterectomy. The jury was receptive to the defense arguments that, in fact, the doctor not only complied with the standard of care, but exceeded it. (2024)
    • Achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a wrongful death case. The lawsuit included allegations of failure to workup and diagnose lung cancer. The 9-day trial revolved around the care provided by the primary care and orthopedic physicians. The plaintiffs claimed the patient’s symptoms were related to a Pancoast tumor that was undiagnosed, resulting in his death. Gary was able to establish with the jury the superiority of the defense experts by comparison, and explain there can be concurrent diseases and there was an objective reason for each and every one of the patient’s symptoms. (2024)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a cardiologist cardiologist who was accused of causing the death of a patient. The plaintiff contended the cardiologist should have immediately sent his patient to the hospital for an emergent cardiac catheterization due to unstable angina. Gary persuaded and convinced the jury that the patient indeed had stable angina and did not need urgent care, even though the patient died four days after the visit. (2024)
    • Secured a defense verdict on behalf of a gynecological surgeon facing accusations of damaging a woman’s ureters and urinary tract during a laparoscopic hysterectomy. The plaintiff claimed that the doctor’s alleged inexperience and negligence led to a transection of the ureter. Following the verdict, the jury emphasized that Gary’s cross-examination of the plaintiff’s experts played a pivotal role in the verdict. (2024)
    • Obtained a total dismissal of a hospital client after six days of trial. The matter involved allegations against the hospital for direct negligence and agency after a radical cystectomy, sepsis, perforation of the bowel and death. (2024)
    • Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a urologist in a case involving testicular torsion. After a six-day trial the jury found the doctor was not liable for any injury sustained by the plaintiff. The key issue in the case revolved around presentation in the emergency room and the interpretation of an ultrasound as well as the presenting symptoms and complaints of the plaintiff. (2024)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict after a six-day trial on behalf of a primary care physician accused of failing to timely diagnose cancer. The unanimous verdict was reached after a thorough and aggressive cross-examination of experts. Gary persuaded the jury that the doctor’s actions were appropriate and that no CT screening was required for this patient despite their extensive smoking history. (2024)
    • After an 8-day trial regarding the death of a patient, Gary obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an interventional cardiologist. The plaintiff alleged the doctor was negligent in his interpretation of an echocardiogram and in the performance of a ventriculogram during a cardiac catheterization. Gary succeeded in presenting expert testimony from four different specialties to persuade the jury his client acted appropriately at all times. Aggressive cross-examination of plaintiffs' experts contributed greatly to the victory. (2023)
    • Secured a defense verdict after a nine-day trial where the jury found no liability for a primary care physician who was accused of making improper referrals to a weight loss physician and failing to work up a 36-year-old obese woman for cardiac issues. The decedent left behind a 4-year-old son and quadriplegic husband making the case extremely sympathetic. (2023)
    • Secured a unanimous defense verdict in Chester County on behalf of a podiatric surgeon after a six-day trial. Plaintiffs alleged the doctor failed to meet the standard of care by not closely observing a patient in follow-up post-surgery on a severe Charcot foot, allowing an infection that led to a below-the-knee amputation. The trial involved seven experts and complicated medicine regarding various infectious pathogens. (2023)
    • Secured a defense verdict for two anesthesiologists accused of malpractice. The plaintiffs had claimed the anesthesiologists failed to properly hydrate the patient during the procedure as well as adequately and appropriately monitor the blood pressure and heart rate. They were also criticized for extubating prior to the patient meeting the necessary criteria. The plaintiffs alleged the deficiencies resulted in poor perfusion to the bowel which led to necrosis and resection leaving the patient with short gut syndrome and cognitive deficits. The jury commented on the effective cross-examination and the quality of the defendants’ experts as being important in their analysis. Raymond Petruccelli was instrumental in the defense of this case. (2023)
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a lab director, hospital and health care system. Gary was asked to “parachute” in two weeks before trial and represent these health care providers. The complex case involved a lab mix-up that caused plaintiffs to have unnecessary surgery in the form of a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The surgery caused complications of stress urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. The plaintiff made an eight-figure demand and the trial lasted eight days. (2023)

Results

View all
blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Hospital hallway photo of nurses and doctors walking away down hall photo

Defense Verdict Secured on Behalf of a Major Philadelphia Healthcare Provider

Thought Leadership

View all

Podcast/Webinar

Combatting Nuclear Verdicts in Plaintiff-Friendly Jurisdictions

October 30, 2025

In this podcast episode, John Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/insurance-law-podcast-am-best/2025/10/combatting-nuclear-verdicts-in-plaintiff-friendly-jurisdictions/

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

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.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/