.

As a member of the Heath Care Department, Sandrine focuses her practice on the defense of health care professionals and institutions in medical malpractice and professional liability litigation.

Sandrine completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Pittsburgh, with degrees in Philosophy and Classics. She then attended the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where she graduated with her J.D. Throughout her studies, Sandrine assisted in the development of online courses for professors of the University’s graduate schools of Medicine, Nursing, Law, and Public and International Affairs.

During law school, Sandrine worked at the Allegheny County Office of the Public Defender where she represented defendants in preliminary hearings. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Sandrine gained valuable experience at one of Pittsburgh’s leading civil litigation defense firms. 

    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 2023)
    • University of Pittsburgh (B.A., summa cum laude, 2020)
    • Pennsylvania, 2023

Thought Leadership

View all

The Quarterly Dose

An Overview of the Protections Afforded by the Peer Review Protection Act

November 1, 2025

As scientific and medical advancements have accelerated, so has the complexity of medical decision-making, exposing a need for standardization in the United States. In 1952, the Joint Commission created the mandatory clinical peer review process. Often referred to as “medical peer review,” it is the process by which health care providers establish and maintain reliable standards of quality in patient care. Clinical peer review entails periodic meetings of professional health care providers to evaluate the quality and efficiency of the services performed by other professional health care providers within the same hospital or health system. Today, countries with reputations for the most exceptional health care all mandate clinical peer review processes. In the United States, the clinical peer review process is so trusted to maintain and improve the quality of health care that every state has enacted a statute preventing certain information and documents discussed in peer review meetings from disclosure in litigation. In 1974, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted the Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA) to provide an evidentiary privilege to protect the “proceedings and documents of a review committee,” conducting peer review activities by professional health care providers, in conformity with its provisions. Reginelli v. Boggs, 181 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. 2018). The PRPA’s evidentiary privilege is set forth in Section 425.4: The proceedings and records of a review committee shall be held in confidence and shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil action against a professional health care provider arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee and no person who was in attendance at a meeting of such committee shall be permitted or required to testify in any such civil action as to any evidence or other matters produced or presented during the proceedings of such committee or as to any findings, recommendations, evaluations, opinions or other actions of such committee or any members thereof. Between 2018 and 2021, courts both narrowed and broadened the application of this privilege. Narrowing: Only “Peer Review Committees” Can Assert the Privilege In Reginelli v. Boggs, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the defendants were not entitled to this privilege primarily because the physician’s employer was not a “professional health care provider” covered under the PRPA. UPMC Emergency Medicine, Inc. (ERMI) staffed the physician to Monongahela Valley Hospital (MVH) and was therefore the physician’s employer. The court held ERMI was not a “professional health care provider” because it was not regulated and licensed to practice medicine. The PRPA defines the term “professional health care providers” as “individuals or organizations who are approved, licensed or otherwise regulated to practice or operate in the health care field under the laws of the Commonwealth.” Because the PRPA’s language explicitly states the “individual or organization be `approved, licensed or otherwise regulated to practice or operate in the health care field under the laws of the Commonwealth- to benefit from the privilege—and the employer at issue was not—the court found the PRPA privilege did not apply. Furthermore, the court found each of the defendants could only be construed as mere “review organizations” that engaged only in a process of reviewing professional qualifications credentialing). Therefore, they were not “review committees” under the PRPA. The PRPA defines a “review organization” as “any committee engaging in peer review....” Although the language of Section 425.4 suggests it pertains to review organizations, the substantive text sets forth confidentiality mandates and testimonial privileges relating to the work and records of review committees. Since the PRPA privilege does not explicitly extend to any review organization that merely conducts credentialing review, the defendants did not qualify for the privilege. Here, the court determined that MVH’s physician merely reviewed the credentials of hospital staff and did not engage in review of the quality and efficiency of the services staff performed. Narrowing: Credentialing Files are Not Protected In Estate of Krappa v. Lyons, the Pennsylvania Superior Court interpreted the PRPA and Reginelli to mean a credentialing file will not be entitled to the PRPA’s evidentiary privilege if it (1) consists entirely of credentialing materials, and (2) was maintained by the hospital’s “credentialing committee.” In Krappa, a patient’s estate brought suit alleging a delay in diagnosis after the patient had died of cancer. During discovery, the estate sought unredacted copies of the medical center’s files concerning two physicians who treated the patient. As discussed in Reginelli, the Superior Court determined credentialing files generated and maintained by a hospital’s credentialing committee are not protected under the PRPA because a credentialing committee does not qualify as a “review committee” engaging in peer review. Narrowing: Event Reports, Root-Cause Analyses are Not Protected In Ungurian v. Beyzman, the Pennsylvania Superior Court articulated that the PRPA privilege does not encompass event reports and root-cause analyses where there is no indication those documents were generated “exclusively for a PRPA 'review committee.' This was a case where the patient’s mother brought a medical malpractice action against physicians, hospital staff, clinics, corporations, and the hospital itself alleging their collective negligence caused the total and permanent incapacity of her child who had undergone a cystoscopy at the hospital. The mother-plaintiff sought to compel various documents, including event reports and root cause analysis, and the defendants appealed arguing protections pursuant to the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 and PRPA. Consistent with the Superior Court’s reasoning in Lyons, the court reasoned that, because neither event reports nor root-cause analyses were generated in the course of peer review and merely constituted business records of the hospital, these documents were not entitled to the privilege. Broadening: Privilege Extends to Peer Review as a Function, not just a “Peer Review Committee” In Leadbitter v. Keystone Anesthesia Consultants, Ltd., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expanded the potential applicability of the PRPA’s evidentiary privilege in contrast to its opinion in Reginelli where, consistent with the plain language of § 425.3-425.4, the court found the title or name of the body conducting the review was determinative of whether the privilege would apply. Here, however, the Leadbitter court articulated that it is instead the actual function or “activity” of a review organization/committee which determines whether the privilege applies. In this case, a physician applied to be appointed to the medical staff of St. Clair Hospital and for orthopedic surgery clinical privileges. After performing surgery on a patient, the patient suffered a series of strokes and filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital, seeking that they produce documents relating to the physician’s credentials, as they claimed the physician lacked expertise. The hospital denied the requests, arguing the PRPA privilege applied because the work of their credentials committee was multifaceted and included peer review. Specifically, the hospital argued that this work included both privileging and credentialing and that, because privileging is covered by the PRPA as a peer review activity, the hospital was entitled to statutory protection. It pointed out—and the Leadbitter court acknowledged—that Reginelli’s reasoning was limited to credentialing review for purposes of appointment to a hospital’s medical staff. The Leadbitter court agreed that privileging is distinct from credentialing as it involves giving the physician permission to treat patients at the hospital, and not merely to exercise political rights in relation to staff and committee meetings. As such, it agreed with the proposition that a credentials committee is entitled to the PRPA’s protections to the extent it performs a peer-review function—in this case, privileging. In short, because of Leadbitter, the PRPA’s evidentiary privilege extends to those who engage in “peer review activities” as the actual function of the committee—not the title—determines whether the privilege applies. Narrowing: Private Physician Practice Groups Cannot Assert the Privilege In 2021, the Eastern District considered whether a report authored by a radiologist who reviewed care provided at a hospital was protected under PRPA. In Lasheena Sipp Lipscob v. Einstein Physicians Pennypack Pediatrics, the plaintiff sued both a hospital and a private radiology practice that provided radiology services to the hospital, arguing the defendants failed to diagnose testicular torsion resulting in the loss of a testicle. A report generated by a radiologist employed by the practice was identified in discovery which reviewed the quality of care rendered to the plaintiff’s minor-patient. The defendants argued this report was protected under the PRPA because it was created for a “peer review purpose.” The court disagreed, reasoning first that the radiology group (i.e., a private medical practice) was not a “professional healthcare provider” within the meaning of the PRPA and therefore not eligible for the evidentiary privilege. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled consistent with this conclusion in 2021 in the non-precedential decision of Bousamra v. Excela Health. Second, while the hospital defendant was clearly a “professional health care provider” under the PRPA, it too could not assert the evidentiary privilege over this report because the authoring radiologist did not generate the report as part of any hospital “committee” as contemplated under the Act. In other words, because the report was not generated for or provided to any hospital “committee” performing a “peer review function,” the PRPA privilege was not extended. Key Takeaways In enacting the Peer Review Protection Act, the Pennsylvania legislature recognized that candid and rigorous clinical peer review is essential to upholding the quality of patient care. Accordingly, the evolving body of case law interpreting the PRPA’s evidentiary privilege carries substantial implications for health care providers and institutions, particularly in the context of medical malpractice litigation. To preserve the confidentiality afforded by the PRPA, documents assessing the quality of care should be created by or for a hospital committee engaged in peer review functions, such as privileging. As with any legal privilege, the integrity of protection depends on strict adherence to confidentiality—such materials must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties, whether internal or external to the institution.  The Quarterly Dose – November 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Striking Complaint as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order

All Dry USA v. Savell, 2026 WL 816093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying All Dry USA’s complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order. The appellate court found that All Dry USA’s failure to comply with the trial court’s case management order did not give the trial court the authority to strike All Dry USA’s pleadings. All Dry USA provided water mitigation, mold remediation, and a restorative tarp at the property owned by the Savells. The property had been damaged by Hurricane Sally. All Dry USA provided invoices for the three services it performed in the amount of $90,130.61. The Savells refused to pay the invoices, stating that while they had retained All Dry USA, there was no agreement reached regarding the cost of the services. All Dry USA proceeded to file a lawsuit against the Savells, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Savells answered the lawsuit and served discovery upon All Dry USA. All Dry USA failed to respond to the discovery requests and the Savells moved for an order compelling discovery. The trial court issued an order compelling All Dry USA to respond to Savells discovery requests and comply with all outstanding discovery deadlines per the case management order. On the day its responses were due, All Dry USA filed a motion to extend the deadline to comply with the court’s order. Before the motion was ruled upon, the Savells filed a motion to have All Dry USA’s complaint stricken for violating the trial court’s order compelling All Dry USA’s responses. The trial court granted the motion to strike, and then granted the Savell’s request for entry of default final judgment, based upon there no longer being an operative complaint. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that an order striking pleadings is justified if it is found that a party has violated numerous discovery orders, or has shown a “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). The appellate court stated that a trial court’s authority to strike pleadings is not unbridled and that the situation before the court did not justify the striking of All Dry USA’s pleadings. In reaching its decision, the First District focused on the fact that the trial court only addressed the potential prejudice to Savell by All Dry USA failing to respond to discovery and seeking an extension of the deadline. The appellate court stated that prejudice is not the only factor to be considered and that the trial court needed to address if All Dry USA’s behavior in failing to comply with the discovery order was willful and deliberate.  The First District also stated that nothing in rule 1.200 or 1.380 grants a trial court the authority to strike a pleading because certain case management deadlines are not met. The appellate court held that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow trial courts to bring the parties in, order them to comply with the case management discovery deadlines, and then strike pleadings if the subsequent discovery orders are disobeyed. This ruling shows the importance of understanding the authority that is binding on the trial court a party is appearing in front of. The First District’s view on a trial court’s ability to strike pleadings is in contrast with other appellate court’s throughout Florida.

Thought Leadership

Court Reaffirms That Actual Cash Value Includes Labor and Overhead, Not Just Materials

Greenaker v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 2D2024-1964, (Fla. 2nd DCA May 8, 2026). The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract suit against Universal for refusal to pay for all of plaintiffs’ damages from a storm in November 2020. Universal filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiffs from introducing evidence concerning both actual cash value and replacement cost value of the loss. They argued that the plaintiffs did not complete repairs or incur any expenses in repairing the damaged property, thus being limited to actual cash value as their measure of damage and the plaintiffs’ submitted estimate of damages contained labor costs necessary for repair and, therefore, not an actual cash value estimate. Universal further asked for a directed verdict at the hearing because the plaintiffs would have no evidence to support the claim for damages. The trial court agreed and granted Universal’s motion, entering a final judgment in Universal’s favor.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and reconsideration due to the court improperly converting Universal’s motion in limine to a motion for final summary judgment. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion and the plaintiffs appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiffs and determined that the trial court improperly entered a final judgment based on a pretrial ruling in limine, advising there was recognized procedures, including summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings, and default judgment that could have been exercised. Further, the court continued that the improper procedure was not the only reason for the judgment to be reversed. They noted the insurance policy did not provide a definition of actual cash value nor how to calculate it, and the parties disputed the definition and calculation of such.  Universal argued that actual cash value is defined as the value of the property that suffered the direct physical loss less depreciation and deductible, i.e. costs of physical materials that were damaged.  The plaintiffs argued that actual cash value includes the amount of repair costs in addition to the value of the property that suffered direct physical loss because it is calculated as the replacement cost minus depreciation.  The court agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that Universal’s definition was not supported by the insurance contract, the statute governing replacement value insurance contracts, nor decisional authority.  The court noted that Universal “cherry-picked” the phrase “direct physical loss” from the perils insured against provision and applied it to the loss settlement provision, which doesn’t state “direct physical loss,” but instead states “insured loss.”  Further, the court conveyed that application of “direct physical loss” would be used on both actual cash value and replacement cost value, as they are both present in the loss settlement provision, which would mean insureds never got payments beyond costs of physically damaged material, which is contradictory to the replacement cost value definition.  The court advised that the Florida Supreme Court had approved the court’s interpretation of actual cash value as including costs other than damaged physical property, including overhead and profit, noting that these costs can be included in actual cash value to which a portion, like all other costs, could be depreciated. The court noted the difference between actual cash value and replacement cost value is not between types of costs, i.e. materials vs. labor, but between the valuation of the costs with the distinction of being a depreciated vs. undepreciated value. The court refused to exclude intangible costs such as labor, profit and overhead from actual cash value, finding these costs inclusions were consistent with statutory and contractual language as well as Florida Supreme Court precedent. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court.

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

News

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

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.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

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.