Ryan is a member of the firm’s Health Care Department, where he focuses his practice on defending physicians and health care organizations such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and various other health systems against medical malpractice claims and lawsuits. He works closely with clients in defending and guiding them through all phases of litigation. In addition to handling complex medical malpractice and skilled nursing home matters, Ryan actively handles child welfare cases involving severe allegations of sexual and physical abuse.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, Ryan stayed true to his roots by attending Temple University for both undergraduate and law school degrees. He was a member of the American Constitution Society and Student Bar Association during law school. Ryan clerked for the Honorable Steven C. Tolliver in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and also spent time in the Major Trial Division at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.
Outside of the office, Ryan is an avid basketball fan who plays in several recreational leagues and follows the NBA. When not on the basketball court, you may find him at a music festival or out hiking.
Results
Summary Judgment Received in a Nursing Home Malpractice Case
We received summary judgment in the defendant’s favor in a nursing home malpractice case. The plaintiff claimed that the facility failed to prevent various conditions and injuries during the resident’s admission-such as UTI/sepsis, acute kidney injury/metabolic encephalopathy, dehydration and failure to thrive/weight loss, and skin breakdown. The plaintiff alleged these developments resulted in numerous damages, including, but not limited to, death. Our motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant sought dismissal on the grounds that the facility held immunity pursuant to the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff hotly disputed the issue. Ultimately, several rounds of briefing were required to achieve the ruling in the facility’s favor.
Thought Leadership
The Quarterly Dose
Isn’t That Wunderly? How the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Mental Health Procedures Act Positively Impacts Treatment Providers
November 1, 2025
On October 23, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, reconfirmed the established reach of the immunity afforded by the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), once again noting that “medical treatment that is coincident to mental health treatment” falls within the ambit of its protections. Wunderly v. St. Luke’s Hospital of Bethlehem, --- A.3d ---, 2025 WL 2988503 (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025).Wunderly stems from a situation involving a patient who was involuntarily admitted to a St. Luke’s Hospital facility for dementia and aggression and who had stage I decubitus ulcers upon admission. While treating the whole person, the hospital demonstrated that the treatment of the patient’s ulcers was “coincident” to the main course of treatment, which was with respect to his mental health. Indeed, the Court recognized that “he was involuntarily admitted to St. Luke’s under Section 302 for dementia-related aggression and remained in its care under Section 303.” Wunderly, 2025 WL 2988503. While being treated, his wound issues worsened, and he was eventually transferred to another facility where he died ten days later. His estate filed suit against St. Luke’s Hospital and its affiliates, asserting that the providers were negligent in the decedent’s care and treatment.At the trial level, the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings for the hospital and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims based on immunity under the MHPA enjoyed by “those individuals and institutions that provide treatment to mentally ill patients.” 50 P.S. 7114. The decision was affirmed by the Superior Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider the scope of additional care provided by St. Luke’s Hospital during the decedent’s admission and whether it constituted “treatment” under the MHPA.In determining that the additional care (i.e., treatment for pressure-related skin-breakdown and wounds) constitutes “treatment” under the MHPA, the Court explained that the Act is not limited to care that is directly related to a patient’s mental status. Rather, “the legislature intended a broader meaning of treatment that includes medical care 'coincident to mental health care’ as well as 'care and other services that supplement treatment’ in order to promote the recovery of the patient from mental illness.” Wunderly, 2025 WL 2988503 (citing Allen v. Montgomery Hospital, 696 A.2d 1175, 1179 (Pa. 1997). The Court noted the General Assembly’s policy-based decision to apply the MHPA to “treatment” in various areas aimed at whole-person health, “such as diet, heat, light, sanitary facilities, clothing, recreation, education and medical care as are necessary to maintain decent, safe and healthful living conditions.” Id. Toward that end, the MHPA grants immunity to ensure the “willingness of doctors [and] hospitals to provide needed medical care to a mentally ill patient.” Id.However, in reaching its decision that the MHPA immunity applies to “medical treatment coincident to mental health treatment,” the Court noted that there is no bright-line rule when “coincident” begins or ends. “While it is difficult to enounce specific parameters given the fact-specific nature of these cases, there will be circumstances where medical treatment is so tenuously connected to the mental health treatment that the [i]mmunity [p]rovision does not apply. The definitions of 'treatment’ and 'adequate treatment’ are broad but not without limitation.” Id. Stated differently, medical treatment rendered by health care providers to mental health patients may be within the scope of the MHPA if it is something that could be anticipated or expected to occur given the patient’s status.Despite the lack of a bright-line rule, the effect of the Wunderly decision is certainly significant. Health care providers who are in the front lines of the Commonwealth’s current mental health crisis now likely have a stronger defense to professional liability claims premised on care involving medical treatment interwoven with care for a patient’s mental health issues. To ensure the availability of the immunity protections afforded by the MHPA, it is a best practice to document and record in detail how the treatment of any physical ailment is related to or connected with a patient’s mental health care. By doing so, a health care provider will be best positioned in defending against any future claim. The Quarterly Dose - November 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.
