Nataliana A. Guida

Nataliana (Talia) devotes her practice to medical malpractice litigation, defending the interests of physicians, dentists, nurses, hospitals, and other health care providers and institutions. She is experienced in all aspects of litigation, and brings hands on trial experience, including examining expert witnesses and presenting complex medical issues to juries. Talia also represents health care providers in licensing and disciplinary board matters. In addition to her litigation work, Talia advises clients on effective risk management strategies.

A strong advocate for her clients, Talia works closely with them to shape a defense strategy that reflects the unique aspects of each case and the outcome they hope to achieve.

Talia began her legal career as a law clerk to the Hon. Rachelle L. Harz, J.S.C. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, where she was involved in handling the Multi-County Litigation (mass tort) docket. She graduated from Quinnipiac University with a degree in Criminal Justice and received her juris doctor from New York Law School.

Honors & Awards

•New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star (2026)
The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here . No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Classes & Seminars Taught

•Coming to a Case Near You: AI in Medicine, Marshall Dennehey Trends in Health Care and Health Law Seminar, May 9, 2024

Results

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

Defense Verdict Secured in a New Jersey Medical Malpractice Case

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of an oral surgeon in a medical malpractice matter. The plaintiff alleged that our client deviated from accepted standards of care when extracting four wisdom teeth resulting in permanent injury to the inferior alveolar nerve. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.

Thought Leadership

Case Law Alerts

Need for Competent Physician Testimony to Establish Proximate Cause in Nursing Malpractice Matters

January 3, 2022

The plaintiff argued that her decedent developed pressure sores to her sacrum and heels at the defendant hospital, which worsened there, and later at nursing facilities, causing her pain and suffering and contributing to her death the following year at age 90. In support of her case, the plaintiff served an expert report from B. Darlington, RN, who opined that nurses at the defendant hospital and subsequent nursing home facilities deviated from accepted standards of nursing care in failing to plan and implement interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. The plaintiff also offered the testimony of A. Karp, M.D., a Board Certified Internist and Geriatrician, to opine as to the injuries caused or exacerbated by the defendants. However, at his deposition, Dr. Karp conceded that he was never provided with a copy of Nurse Darlington’s report or deposition testimony and was not even aware of what she claimed were the deviations from the standard of care. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment, holding that Dr. Karp was unable as a matter of law to establish causation since he did not even read Nurse Darlington’s report or deposition testimony and as a physician cannot opine as to the standard of care of a nurse. The Appellate Division affirmed, reiterating that Dr. Karp did not have knowledge of Nurse Darlington’s allegations of deviations and, therefore, could not possibly link any specific deviation to the decedent’s injury or death. Additionally, the Appellate Division found no factual support in the record which would allow Dr. Karp to opine that the pressure wound either caused the decedent pain or contributed to her death. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the qualification requirements for the issuance of standard of care and causation opinions amongst different licensed professionals.

Vicarious Liability-Do You Really Need an Affidavit of Merit?

May 6, 2021

If a plaintiff’s fundamental cause of action sounds in professional negligence against a “licensed person,” he or she may not evade the AOM requirement by suing only a public entity, and not the individual “licensed person.” But what about the alleged medical negligence of an unlicensed person?

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

March 20, 2026

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025