David G. Tomeo

David concentrates his practice in the defense of medical malpractice claims in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. He is often called upon to represent staffing companies and health care practices in malpractice suits, utilizing his substantial knowledge and experience to guide corporate entities in handling issues commonly faced in these cases, including “piercing the corporate veil” allegations, violation of the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, and claims for respondeat superior liability.

Clients routinely seek David’s counsel to defend malpractice actions seeking to hold a parent or holding company liable for the alleged negligent actions of subsidiaries and the health care providers employed by such subsidiaries. In addition, urgent care center franchisors rely on David’s keen understanding of the unique intersection of medical malpractice and franchise law when facing medical malpractice suits.

David has extensive trial and courtroom experience throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. In addition to his trial court work, he has argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court and has handled numerous appeals in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He has also served as an author and speaker on current trends and issues impacting his clients.

Giving back and contributing to his community is a top priority for David. He provides pro bono legal services through Volunteer Lawyers for Justice and has been honored with the organization’s 'Volunteer of the Year” award.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell

Published Works

•Navigating a New Legal Landscape: Protecting the Corporate Veil in the Med Mal Suit New Jersey Law Journal, New Jersey Law Journal, May 14, 2024
•'Turnabout is Fair Play: When an Expert Switches Sides on the Eve of Trial,' New Jersey Law Journal, Medical Malpractice Supplement, May 8, 2023

Results

Summary Judgment Secured in a Complex Medical Malpractice Case

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of an obstetrician in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff alleged that our client did not obtain the requisite informed consent from the plaintiff to undergo a trial of labor after having two prior cesarean section deliveries (TOLAC x2). The court found that the plaintiff’s lack of informed consent claim was without foundation as she had an awareness of the risks of TOLAC x2. Rather, the court found that her claim was premised on the assertion that the physician performing the TOLAC x2 failed to convert the TOLAC to a C-section quickly enough when complications arose. The court held that our client had no obligation to discuss the risk that the doctor in the delivery room may wait too long to pivot to a C-section, which was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s alleged harm.

Dismissal Obtained in Multi-count Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey

We successfully secured a dismissal in the Superior Court of New Jersey on personal jurisdiction grounds. This was a multi-count complaint brought by a New Jersey-based medical laboratory against our client, an Arizona company which provides both medical services and health insurance to Arizona residents. The plaintiff argued that our client was amenable to suit in this state, however, we were able to establish that, not only was such an assertion untrue, but also that any claims sent by the plaintiff to our client for testing services would have been processed in Arizona and that our client did not have any contacts-much less the constitutionally mandated minimum contacts-necessary for personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. As a result, the court dismissed the action with prejudice in New Jersey.

Thought Leadership

Navigating a New Legal Landscape: Protecting the Corporate Veil in the Med Mal Suit

May 14, 2024

In the last decade, there has been an increasing tendency for medical malpractice plaintiffs to include as defendants not only the health care providers who rendered the allegedly negligent care and the practice groups with which they were affiliated or employed, but also to name those corporations or limited liability companies which either managed or provided support services to the defendant practice groups on a “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory. The argument posits that the group and the company by which it is managed are not distinct entities, but rather one enterprise-at least for medical malpractice liability.

Turnabout Is Fair Play: When an Expert Switches Sides on the Eve of Trial

May 8, 2023

A tactical decision will need to be made whether to set forth expert opinions attacking a co-defendant in the initial report, or to wait to serve a supplemental report on notice of a co-defendant’s settlement.

News

New Jersey Litigation Leader David G. Tomeo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Roseland Office as a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

March 13, 2023