.

Kathleen M. Kramer

Co-Chair, Catastrophic Medical Injury Practice

Senior Counsel

KMKramer@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Kathleen M. Kramer

For more than 30 years, Kathleen (Kate) has devoted her practice exclusively to medical malpractice defense, representing physicians, hospitals, nurses, nursing homes and other health care facilities. 

Kate has been involved in numerous high-exposure cases involving brain-injured infants as well as adults with significant long-standing injuries. In those cases, she has been involved in the retention and preparation of highly qualified and sophisticated experts who have assisted in helping achieve defense verdicts for her clients. Since beginning her career, Kate has handled more than 700 medical malpractice matters. She has tried more than 125 cases to verdict, with the overwhelming majority of them being defense verdicts.

After receiving a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Delaware in 1981, Kate subsequently attended Dickenson School of Law in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where she received her juris doctor in 1984. While at Dickenson, she was on the National Trial Moot Court Team and was the winner in the ATLA National Student Trial Advocacy Competition in 1984. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 1989, Kate worked for four years at McEldrew, Quinn, Scace & Selfridge where she did medical malpractice defense work.

Kate has lectured for various organizations over the course of her career, including the Pennsylvania Insurance Association, and has conducted continuing medical education seminars at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. Additionally, Kate regularly lectures at a large medical school in Philadelphia on litigation related issues, including mock depositions.

    • Penn State Dickinson Law (J.D., 1984)
    • University of Delaware (B.A., 1981)
    • Pennsylvania, 1984
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • National Champion, ATLA Trial Association Competition
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2012-2022)
    • American Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Issues in Medical Malpractice, Defense Institute
    • "Seismic Shift in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Informed Consent Cases," co-author, Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 4, December 2017
    • "Beating, Gunfire and Loss of Employment Not Foreseeable From Misdiagnosis of Syphilis," co-author, Defense Digest, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 2001
    • Obtained a defense verdict after a week-long jury trial in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged she sustained a bowel perforation injury in the course of a robotic-laparoscopic hysterectomy. The procedure was performed by an obstetrician/gynecologist. During the course of the procedure, a general surgeon was called in to evaluate the bowels for injuries. There were no injuries found, so the procedure was completed, and the patient was discharged the following day. Two days later the patient returned in critically ill condition, and a bowel perforation in the sigmoid colon was identified. The plaintiff alleged the providers negligently failed to detect the injury during the hysterectomy. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.
    • Obtained a defense verdict following three-week jury trial in wrongful death and survival case involving complex claims/theories medical negligence in which verdict exposure was over $1 million; appeal followed; obtained a dismissal of plaintiff's appeal and unanimous appellate court affirmance in a published opinion (2016 PA Super 142) in an issue of first impression regarding waiver for failure to order, pay for, and cite to official transcripts in plaintiff's post-trial brief (Phila Cty 2016).
    • Obtained pre-trial dismissal of 11 claims against three defendants and then defense verdict following 14 minutes of jury deliberations in three-week jury trial in wrongful death and survival case involving claims/theories of medical negligence in which verdict exposure was over $1 Million (Phila Cty 2016).
    • Obtained a defense verdict following month-long jury trial in obstetrical negligence case in which plaintiff's demand to settle was $100 million involving allegations of catastrophic birth injuries and testimony from 14 expert witnesses; no appeal followed (Phila Cty 2015).
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a hospital client in a wrongful death action involving a medication overdose where the patient was given 1,000 times the amount of medical ordered by the physician (Phila Cty 2011).
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a hospital client in a trial involving allegations that the defendants were negligent in failing to anticoagulate the patient following surgery thereby causing the patient to sustain a stroke. This was the second time this case was tried to verdict as it was originally tried to a defense verdict in 2004, after which the plaintiff appealed (Phila Cty 2009).
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a psychiatric hospital in a trial involving allegations that the patient was negligently discharged as the patient committed suicide shortly after discharge (Phila Cty 2006).
    • Obtained a defense verdict for a hospital client where it was alleged that they failed to properly diagnose and treat a stroke (Phila Cty 2006).

Results

View all

Defense Verdict Secured in Chester County Medical Malpractice Case

We obtained a defense verdict after a week-long jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged she sustained a bowel perforation injury in the course of a robotic-laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the course of the procedure, a general surgeon was called in to evaluate the bowels for injuries. There were no injuries found, so the procedure was completed, and the patient was discharged the following day. Two days later, the patient returned in critically ill condition, and a bowel perforation in the sigmoid colon was identified. The plaintiff alleged the health care providers negligently failed to detect the injury during the hysterectomy. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.