As a supervising attorney for the Health Care Liability Practice, Lynne coordinates and oversees the work of the attorneys who handle cases throughout eight New Jersey counties. Lynne's role is vital to ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively. Lynne also serves as the co-chair of the Long-Term Care Liability Practice Group.
Lynne has been a trial attorney for more than 35 years and has litigated hundreds of cases in the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, many to verdict and directed verdict in favor of her clients. She has provided legal counsel to physicians, hospitals, nurses, allied health professionals, dentists, nursing homes and physician practices.
Lynne received a Bachelor of Science degree from Sargents College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at Boston University in 1985. After completing internships at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Eugenia Hospital, Lynne became a licensed occupational therapist. She later enrolled at Temple University School of Law to pursue a career that combined her health care education with the practice of law.
Lynne has spent her legal career defending practitioners and facilities in the health care industry.
Results
Unanimous Jury Verdict for the Defense in Medical Malpractice Case
We successfully defended an anesthesiologist after a two-week trial which included testimony of five medical experts and three treating doctors. The plaintiffs claimed the doctor’s regional nerve block, executed in advance of an orthopedic Achilles rupture repair, was performed negligently causing permanent nerve damage. Damages were sought for pain impacting marital relations and all aspects of the plaintiff's life. Under our cross examination, the plaintiff’s standard of care expert flipped his opinion. Despite excellent conditions for a directed verdict, the court declined to rule, ultimately resulting in a unanimous jury verdict for the defense.
Directed Verdict Secured in Case Involving Alleged Negligence by a Chiropractor
We successfully defended a chiropractor with a directed verdict on informed consent and a no cause, 7-0, on standard of care. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain an MRI before adjusting the lumbar spine with a differential diagnosis, which included a herniated or bulging disc.
News
106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2026
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2025
Thought Leadership
The Quarterly Dose
From Bedside to Bar
August 26, 2026
Lynne N. Nahmani, Esq. Former Occupational Therapist For the Love of Medicine! After more than three decades defending health care professionals in medical malpractice cases, I still harken back to my undergraduate education as an occupational therapist. My education focused on anatomy, physiology, human behavior, and physical and cognitive development; disciplines that have shaped every single legal case I have defended. The competencies acquired are closely aligned, as the scientific analysis reflected in a S.O.A.P. note parallels the legal reasoning process. As lawyers, we must recognize the Subjective and Objective case facts, perform a legal Assessment, and develop a Plan for defense. Both professions require critical thinking, careful investigation, and a commitment to solving complex problems. Whether serving a patient or a client, the goal is the same: provide guidance and support for their particular problem. Each problem requires a scientific exercise into the underlying medicine. By understanding the medical issues involved, we are better equipped to build a strong defense, explain complex concepts to a jury, and help our clients make informed decisions about the risks, options, and strategies available for achieving the best possible outcome. Susan A. Kostkas, Esq. Registered Nurse When people ask what I do for a living, I often describe myself as a “nurse who went to law school.” Caring for others has always been a natural part of who I am. Inspired by my mother, a nurse, I began working in nursing homes as a dietary aide during high school and later as a nurse’s assistant while in college. I went on to practice as a nurse at the bedside for ten years, primarily in cardiac care, including time before, during and after law school. My nursing experience continues to influence the way I practice law every day. As a nurse, I learned to assess complex situations, prioritize competing demands, solve problems under pressure, and collaborate effectively with multidisciplinary teams. Those same skills are invaluable in litigation, where strategic decision-making, careful analysis, and teamwork are critical to achieving successful outcomes. My health care background also gives me a unique perspective when reviewing medical records and evaluating clinical issues. Being able to understand medical conditions and health care concepts helps me identify key issues related to liability, causation, and damages. Most importantly, nursing taught me the value of the human side of advocacy. The skills of active listening, empathy, and conflict resolution remind me to slow down amid the demands of litigation and focus on my client. Often, the most important insights into a case come directly from them. These same skills also help me better understand the motivations of plaintiffs and their counsel, allowing me to develop thoughtful, effective defense strategies.
The Quarterly Dose
New Leverage for Defendants: Burckhardt’s Impact on New Jersey Nursing Home Act Litigation
June 11, 2026
In a unanimous, unpublished opinion issued on February 24, 2026, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal of claims against a rehabilitation facility based on the plaintiffs’ failure to prove proximate causation—an essential element of negligence claims as well as claims brought under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Act (NHA). Although unpublished, Burckhardt v. Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell, LLC provides important guidance for defendants facing nursing home malpractice and Resident-Rights Act litigation. Background of the Case The decedent, Burckhardt, was a 72-year-old resident at Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell (Advanced). He had numerous medical conditions, including encephalopathy, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, urinary tract infection, respiratory failure, dysphagia, and required assistance with activities of daily living, including eating. The plaintiffs alleged that Advanced failed to follow Burckhardt’s care plan by leaving him alone in his room while eating and failing to follow his care plan. During that time, he choked and required emergency medical intervention and was hospitalized. Burckhardt suffered cardiac arrest and died two days later. His children, the Estate representatives, filed suit against Advanced, alleging negligence and violations of the NHA based on the alleged failure to appropriately “monitor” him during meals as care planned for. Trial Court’s Ruling After five days of testimony, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Advanced, dismissing all claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of proximate causation. Specifically, Advanced argued, previously via summary judgment and again at trial, that neither of the plaintiffs’ medical experts offered sufficient testimony establishing that the alleged lack of staff presence was a “but-for” or “substantial factor” cause of Burckhardt’s injuries and death, as required under New Jersey law. The trial court agreed. It emphasized that the plaintiffs’ nursing expert, Bonnie Tadrick, testified only as to the applicable standard of care and an alleged failure to monitor, but admittedly did not offer an opinion on causation. The plaintiffs’ physician expert, Dr. Hood, testified about the mechanics of choking and identified choking as the cause of death. However, Dr. Hood failed to opine that any conduct by the Advanced staff caused, increased the risk or worsened the choking episode. Without expert testimony linking the alleged breach of care to the outcome, the court found the plaintiffs’ proofs legally insufficient and dismissed the case. Appellate Division’s Analysis The Appellate Division affirmed, carefully analyzing the causation requirements for both negligence and NHA claims. The court held that the Estate failed to establish the essential causal link between any alleged lapse in care and Burckhardt’s injury. With respect to Nurse Tadrick, the court noted that while she testified about the standard of care and the need for monitoring, she admitted she was not offering a causation opinion—and could not do so under New Jersey law, which prohibits nurses from testifying about medical causation. Her testimony did not explain how staff presence in the room would have prevented the choking, altered its severity or the ultimate outcome. As to Dr. Hood, the Appellate Division acknowledged that he was qualified to testify on causation but found his testimony inadequate. Although he explained how choking occurs and identified it as the cause of death, he never testified that the alleged absence of staff caused the choking or was a substantial factor in producing the injury. He also never opined that the staff failed to timely respond to the alleged incident. The court stressed that to reach a jury, plaintiffs were required to present evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the absence of staff increased the risk of harm and that earlier intervention would likely have changed the outcome. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to meet that minimal threshold. Nursing Home Act Claims and Causation The Appellate Division also squarely addressed whether NHA claims require proof of causation. The Estate argued they did not. The court rejected that argument, holding that causation is required even though the NHA does not explicitly use the word. The court reasoned that damages are, by definition, compensation for harm, and recovery without a causal connection would make little sense. The court further held that the NHA claims failed for an additional reason: the Estate did not establish a separate or distinct injury attributable to the alleged resident-rights violation. Even if causation had been established, the absence of proof that the alleged NHA violation resulted in an independent injury was fatal to the claim. Significance of Burckhardt Although unpublished, Burckhardt is a meaningful decision for defendants in nursing home litigation. The Appellate Division’s clear statement that NHA claims require proof of proximate causation—and an identifiable injury tied to the alleged statutory violation—provides defendants with a powerful basis for early motion practice. The decision supports dispositive motions at the summary judgment stage where plaintiffs’ experts fail to connect alleged care deficiencies to a specific injury. It also serves as a lesson to defense counsel to renew the dispositive motion grounds at the end of a plaintiff’s case, where appropriate.
