As a supervising attorney for the Health Care Liability Practice, Lynne coordinates and oversees the work of the attorneys who handle cases throughout eight New Jersey counties. Lynne's role is vital to ensuring that client matters are handled promptly, professionally and effectively. Lynne also serves as the co-chair of the Long-Term Care Liability Practice Group.
Lynne has been a trial attorney for more than 35 years and has litigated hundreds of cases in the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, many to verdict and directed verdict in favor of her clients. She has provided legal counsel to physicians, hospitals, nurses, allied health professionals, dentists, nursing homes and physician practices.
Lynne received a Bachelor of Science degree from Sargents College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at Boston University in 1985. After completing internships at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Eugenia Hospital, Lynne became a licensed occupational therapist. She later enrolled at Temple University School of Law to pursue a career that combined her health care education with the practice of law.
Lynne has spent her legal career defending practitioners and facilities in the health care industry.
Honors & Awards
•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell
The Martindale-Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. 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.
•The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Health Care (2024-2026)
The Best Lawyers list is issued by Woodward & White. 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.
•New Jersey Super Lawyers (2006-2007)
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.
•South Jersey Magazine, Top Lawyer 2009
Classes/Seminars Taught
•Long Term Care Litigation and the Covid-19 Pandemic: Injury and Immunity, New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, June 1, 2020
•What is Your Case Worth?, Marshall Dennehey Health Care and Health Law Seminar, November 9, 2017
•New Jersey Case Law Update, Health Care Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 9, 2016
•Avoiding and Defending Nursing Home Litigation, American College of Health Care Administrators 50th Annual Convocation & Exposition, April 20, 2016
•Mock Trial: Lessons from the Bar and Risk Management, American Professional Agency, Inc., March 23, 2016
•Affidavit of Merit, Experts and the Net Opinion Rule Seminar, New Jersey State Bar Association Summer CLEFest, August 14, 2015
•Sex and the Facility: Understanding and Reducing Liabilities, American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living Annual Conference, October 5, 2014, Washington, D.C.
•Sex and the Facility - Starring the Defense, 2013 Trends in Health Care and Health Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 7, 2013
•Long-Term Care, Hospicomm, April 4, 2012
•Nursing Home Litigation - How to Handle and Defend a Case, Allied World Assurance Company, January 2012
•When You Are First Sued, What to Do and What Not to Do and the Processes of a Medical Negligence Claim, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, program for medical residents and physicians, Spring 2010
•Annual Seminar for Clients and Risk Managers, Princeton Insurance Company
•Risk Management and Dental Claims, Eastern Dentists Insurance Company
•Mock Trial Demonstration, South Jersey Medical Office Managers Society, Conventus Insurance Company
•Seminars given at local hospitals for interns and residents, CME credits
Published Works
•'Med Mal Litigation and Social Media Records: Where is New Jersey Headed?' New Jersey Law Journal, May 19, 2014
•'Doctor's Personal Characteristics Not Relevant to Claims of Informed Consent,' The Redwoods Group Dentists Insurance Program, Monthly Article, January 2002 and Defense Digest, 2001-10, Vol. 7, No. 5
•'Defending the Discovery Rule,' Defense Digest, Spring 1993
Results
Unanimous Jury Verdict for the Defense in Medical Malpractice Case
We successfully defended an anesthesiologist after a two-week trial which included testimony of five medical experts and three treating doctors. The plaintiffs claimed the doctor’s regional nerve block, executed in advance of an orthopedic Achilles rupture repair, was performed negligently causing permanent nerve damage. Damages were sought for pain impacting marital relations and all aspects of the plaintiff's life. Under our cross examination, the plaintiff’s standard of care expert flipped his opinion. Despite excellent conditions for a directed verdict, the court declined to rule, ultimately resulting in a unanimous jury verdict for the defense.
Directed Verdict Secured in Case Involving Alleged Negligence by a Chiropractor
We successfully defended a chiropractor with a directed verdict on informed consent and a no cause, 7-0, on standard of care. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain an MRI before adjusting the lumbar spine with a differential diagnosis, which included a herniated or bulging disc.
Thought Leadership
The Quarterly Dose
New Leverage for Defendants: Burckhardt’s Impact on New Jersey Nursing Home Act Litigation
June 11, 2026
In a unanimous, unpublished opinion issued on February 24, 2026, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal of claims against a rehabilitation facility based on the plaintiffs’ failure to prove proximate causation-an essential element of negligence claims as well as claims brought under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Act (NHA). Although unpublished, Burckhardt v. Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell, LLC provides important guidance for defendants facing nursing home malpractice and Resident-Rights Act litigation.Background of the CaseThe decedent, Burckhardt, was a 72-year-old resident at Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell (Advanced). He had numerous medical conditions, including encephalopathy, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, urinary tract infection, respiratory failure, dysphagia, and required assistance with activities of daily living, including eating.The plaintiffs alleged that Advanced failed to follow Burckhardt’s care plan by leaving him alone in his room while eating and failing to follow his care plan. During that time, he choked and required emergency medical intervention and was hospitalized. Burckhardt suffered cardiac arrest and died two days later. His children, the Estate representatives, filed suit against Advanced, alleging negligence and violations of the NHA based on the alleged failure to appropriately “monitor” him during meals as care planned for.Trial Court’s RulingAfter five days of testimony, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Advanced, dismissing all claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of proximate causation. Specifically, Advanced argued, previously via summary judgment and again at trial, that neither of the plaintiffs’ medical experts offered sufficient testimony establishing that the alleged lack of staff presence was a “but-for” or “substantial factor” cause of Burckhardt’s injuries and death, as required under New Jersey law.The trial court agreed. It emphasized that the plaintiffs’ nursing expert, Bonnie Tadrick, testified only as to the applicable standard of care and an alleged failure to monitor, but admittedly did not offer an opinion on causation. The plaintiffs’ physician expert, Dr. Hood, testified about the mechanics of choking and identified choking as the cause of death. However, Dr. Hood failed to opine that any conduct by the Advanced staff caused, increased the risk or worsened the choking episode. Without expert testimony linking the alleged breach of care to the outcome, the court found the plaintiffs’ proofs legally insufficient and dismissed the case.Appellate Division’s AnalysisThe Appellate Division affirmed, carefully analyzing the causation requirements for both negligence and NHA claims. The court held that the Estate failed to establish the essential causal link between any alleged lapse in care and Burckhardt’s injury.With respect to Nurse Tadrick, the court noted that while she testified about the standard of care and the need for monitoring, she admitted she was not offering a causation opinion-and could not do so under New Jersey law, which prohibits nurses from testifying about medical causation. Her testimony did not explain how staff presence in the room would have prevented the choking, altered its severity or the ultimate outcome.As to Dr. Hood, the Appellate Division acknowledged that he was qualified to testify on causation but found his testimony inadequate. Although he explained how choking occurs and identified it as the cause of death, he never testified that the alleged absence of staff caused the choking or was a substantial factor in producing the injury. He also never opined that the staff failed to timely respond to the alleged incident.The court stressed that to reach a jury, plaintiffs were required to present evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the absence of staff increased the risk of harm and that earlier intervention would likely have changed the outcome. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to meet that minimal threshold.Nursing Home Act Claims and CausationThe Appellate Division also squarely addressed whether NHA claims require proof of causation. The Estate argued they did not. The court rejected that argument, holding that causation is required even though the NHA does not explicitly use the word. The court reasoned that damages are, by definition, compensation for harm, and recovery without a causal connection would make little sense.The court further held that the NHA claims failed for an additional reason: the Estate did not establish a separate or distinct injury attributable to the alleged resident-rights violation. Even if causation had been established, the absence of proof that the alleged NHA violation resulted in an independent injury was fatal to the claim.Significance of BurckhardtAlthough unpublished, Burckhardt is a meaningful decision for defendants in nursing home litigation. The Appellate Division’s clear statement that NHA claims require proof of proximate causation-and an identifiable injury tied to the alleged statutory violation-provides defendants with a powerful basis for early motion practice. The decision supports dispositive motions at the summary judgment stage where plaintiffs’ experts fail to connect alleged care deficiencies to a specific injury. It also serves as a lesson to defense counsel to renew the dispositive motion grounds at the end of a plaintiff’s case, where appropriate.
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America
August 20, 2025
