R. Scott Eichhorn

Attorney in Roseland, NJ
Scott joined Marshall Dennehey as a shareholder in the firm's Health Care Department in 2008, bringing a substantial portion of his prior firm, McDonough, Korn, Eichhorn & Schorr, with him. Scott has devoted the vast majority of his 31 years of practice to the defense of physicians and other health care practitioners in various types of health care liability matters. During that time, he developed a reputation for excellence in the defense of medical malpractice cases throughout the courts in northern and central New Jersey.

Scott has routinely retained multiple disciplines of highly qualified experts in sophisticated matters in order to defend such cases on a variety of levels, thus achieving settlements far below the plaintiffs' monetary demands. He has personally handled more than 150 jury trials to verdict, in addition to many hundreds of litigated cases throughout his career. He has achieved successful defense verdicts in 95 percent of his jury trials. The majority have been complex medical malpractice cases involving severe, permanent injuries and/or death. Scott's significant experience has positioned him to represent hundreds of physicians, hospitals and nurses in all types of health care liability and licensing matters.

Based upon his trial skills and experience, Scott has been certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a civil trial attorney since 1985. He was elected to the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2005 and has been recognized as a New Jersey Super Lawyer (2005-2013) in the field of medical malpractice defense.

Over the years, Scott's medical malpractice defense caseload has evolved into primarily severe, catastrophic permanent injury and death matters ranging from neurological and orthopedic damage, to negligence and misdiagnosis, to cancer and sudden cardiac death cases. Scott has also developed a specific expertise in the handling of birth cases resulting in permanent Erb's Palsy (brachial plexus) injuries.

Scott is a graduate of Bucknell University, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration in 1976. In 1979, he graduated from Villanova University School of Law, where he was a member of the Villanova National Moot Court Team that was awarded the Frank Edward Roda Award by the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association in recognition of the Pennsylvania law school that advanced the farthest in the National Moot Court Competition. After graduation, Scott completed a one-year judicial clerkship for the Honorable Edward W. Beglin, J.S.C., and Honorable Lawrence Weiss, J.S.C., in Union County, New Jersey.

Significant Representative Matters

•The case of Howard v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 172 N.J. 537 (2002); successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court to prevent a plaintiff from being able to allege fraudulent misrepresentation against a surgeon for allegedly misrepresenting his credentials and experience to the patient prior to the patient's agreement to the surgery. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that such an allegation is properly encompassed within an Informed Consent claim.

•Defended a general practitioner in a group of over 70 consolidated cases filed against the physician (and New Jersey Transit Rail) for the doctor's role in permitting a New Jersey Transit engineer to continue to operate a commuter train after abnormalities were revealed on the vision portion of his annual certification examination. The engineer subsequently ran a stop indication, causing a head-on collision between two commuter trains, resulting in many severe injuries and some deaths. The cases were all ultimately settled, with 75 percent of the monetary contribution being paid by New Jersey Transit, and only 25 percent of the payment being made on behalf of the physician.

•Obtained defense verdicts in favor of the doctors at trial in several cases filed against cardiologists involving cardiac death. The decedents in these cases were all relatively young (30-45 years of age) married men with solid employment histories, who left behind wives and young children.

•Obtained defense verdicts at trial in many cases involving allegations of failure to diagnose multiple medical conditions, including rare diseases such as pheochromocytoma (rare form of adrenal cancer).

•Defense verdict in Union County case in which a middle-aged male presented to the ER with fecal impaction and expired after several hours of conservative medical treatment by the defendant general surgeon.

•Defense verdict in an Essex County case in which a middle-aged female died of a yeast infection after several days of medical treatment by the defendant infectious disease specialist in the hospital.

•Defense verdict in Union County case against a pediatric urologist for failure to diagnose testicular torsion in a teenage male, resulting in the loss of a testicle and decreased fertility.

•Was the only defense attorney to obtain a jury verdict in favor of their client in the 2004 trial of the case of Pellicer v. St. Barnabas Medical Center, et al., which resulted in the largest medical malpractice verdict in New Jersey history - $76 million. The jury verdict was appealed by the defense and was ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues by the New Jersey Supreme Court, due to multiple errors by the trial court which pervaded the trial and cumulated to unfairly tilt the balance in favor of plaintiffs and to deprive defendants of a fair trial.


•Certified Civil Trial Attorney, Supreme Court of New Jersey

Classes/Seminars Taught

Fundamentals of Trial Techniques (defense of medical malpractice cases), presented to medical malpractice defense attorneys, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2008

Medical & Legal Responsibilities Associated With Shoulder Dystocia Outcomes, presented to OB/Gyns at Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston, New Jersey, 2005

•Introductory talk to incoming residents at New Jersey Medical School regarding responsibilities to patients, pitfalls of the medical/legal system and tips for avoiding medical/legal problems, , Piscataway, New Jersey, 2002--2006

Defending Hospitals, Nurses & Residents in New Jersey, presented to practicing New Jersey attorneys at ICLE Seminar in Woodbridge, New Jersey, 1992

Past Employment Positions

•Judicial clerk to Hon. Edward W. Beglin, Jr. and Hon. Lawrence Weiss, Judges, Superior Court of New Jersey, 1979--1980

•McDonough, Murray & Korn, 1980-1990

•McDonough, Korn & Eichhorn, 1990-2006

•McDonough, Korn, Eichhorn & Schorr, 2006-2008

Honors & Awards

•New Jersey Super Lawyer, (2005-2014)

•Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association Roda Award to Pennsylvania Law School that advances the farthest in the National Moot Court Competition, 1979

Year Joined Organization: 2008

(973) 618-4154
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.4 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Medical Malpractice
  • General Litigation
  • Hospital Malpractice


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

4.4 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1979, New Jersey
1979, Pennsylvania
1983, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey

Law School Attended

Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, Pennsylvania
Class of 1979
Regional Semi-Finalist in National Moot Court Competition, 1979

University Attended

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Class of 1976
Business Administration

Associations & Memberships

Associations & MembershipsAmerican Board of Trial Advocates•Trial Attorneys of New Jersey •Richard J. Hughes American Inn of Court, Master since 1993... More


(Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney )

Contact Information


(973) 618-4154


(973) 618-0685


Send email to R. Scott Eichhorn

Office Information
R. Scott Eichhorn
 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 302,
Roseland, NJ 07068


Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C. (Roseland, New Jersey)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.