.

Donna M. Modestine

Assistant Director, Health Care Department

Shareholder

Portrait of Donna M. Modestine

As Assistant Director of the Health Care Department, Donna assists in the administration and oversight of the firm's health care attorneys. Donna is also an active litigator in the area of medical malpractice. She has represented a large number of hospitals in Southeastern Pennsylvania, as well as physicians, physician groups, allied health professionals and long-term care facilities. Donna is also experienced in representing health care providers in professional licensing matters.

An experienced attorney, Donna is involved in her cases from beginning to end, including all aspects of discovery phase, expert retention and trial preparation. By ensuring that any medical experts, economists or vocational experts are well prepared, Donna has achieved greatly reduced settlements or sharply reduced awards from the jury at the time of trial.

Donna places a high value on communication and client relationships. By working closely with her clients from case inception to completion, Donna delivers personalized attention and strives to achieve an optimal result tailored specifically for each client.

Donna is a graduate of Penn State University. She attended Widener University School of Law, where she received her juris doctor, cum laude in 1997. While at Widener University, she was a staff member of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law and received honors for academic achievement in legal writing and analysis.

As an active member of the community, Donna serves as an adjunct professor at Montgomery County Community College, teaching Medical, Legal Ethics. She also partnered with her local high school in the development of its Career Pathways program which assists students in developing future education and vocational goals. 

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1997)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 1992)
    • Pennsylvania, 1997
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2019-2022)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005-2007)
    • Delaware County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • What is Your Case Worth When Analyzed and Compared Over the Last Several Years?, Delaware County Bar Association, December 11, 2019
    • Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (50 P. S. §  7112) - 302 Commitments, The Chester County Hospital Grand Rounds, April 9, 2019 
    • What is Your Case Worth?, Delaware County Bar Association, December 2018
    • What is Your Case Worth?, Delaware County Bar Association Bench Bar Conference, June 2017
    • Highlights in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law, Philadelphia Area Society of Healthcare Risk Management, January 28, 2016
    • Let's Agree to Agree; Mediation in Civil Litigation, Delaware County Bench Bar Conference, June 5, 2014
    • Mock Deposition and Trial Presentation, Lancaster Health System, July 9, 2008
    • The Amazing Race: The Emerging Trends In Hospital Liability, 2008 PLUS MPL Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March 11-12, 2008
    • Clinical Support Systems; E-Discovery and Privacy Liability: How They All Come Together, AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., New York, New York, December 19, 2007
    • Who's Been Reading My Chart? Do Clinical Support Systems REALLY Protect Patient Privacy?, 2007 PLUS International Conference, Washington, DC, November 9, 2007
    • Computer-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems (DSS), Lancaster General Hospital, Women and Babies Hospital, January 2007
    • Electronic Medical Records and Computer-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems (DSS), Chester County Hospital Medical Staff, February 24, 2006
    • Disclosure of Serious Events, Chester County Hospital Medical Staff, March 4, 2005
    • Practical Strategies for Reducing Liability, VHA Physician Risk Management Education Program, March 8, 2005
    • The Deposition Process, Alleviating Your Fears, Lancaster General Hospital Education Counsel, June 8, 2005
    • The Deposition Process, Alleviating Your Fears, Lancaster General Hospital Education Counsel: Women and Babies Hospital, December 28, 2005
    • Managing and Disclosing Medical Errors, Medical Staff and Nursing Staff at Brandywine Hospital, June 11, 2004
    • Tort Reform and Your New Responsibilities, Holy Redeemer Hospital Medical Staff, December 1, 2004
    • "Grooming Your Internal Team…The Importance of Mentoring the Younger Attorneys on the Team," January 2016
    • "Who Pays. Is The Pennsylvania Property And Casualty Insurance Guarantee Association Responsible for Delay Damages?," Defense Digest, Fall 2005
    • "Risk Management By Apology: Does 'Warm And Fuzzy' Really Work?," Millennium Risk Management News, Winter 2004-2005, Vol. 1., No. 3
    • Secured a defense verdict in a high/low arbitration where she represented a surgeon. The plaintiff alleged a delay in the performance of an appendectomy for a perforated appendix. The plaintiff went on to require a prolonged hospitalization and two subsequent surgeries. Donna successfully argued that the delay in the performance of the surgery did not result in any of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 

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.

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. 

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.

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.