.

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

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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. 

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.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Result

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

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.