Robin B. Snyder

Robin B. Snyder: Attorney with Marshall Dennehey
  • Shareholder; Assistant Director, Health Care Department at Marshall Dennehey
  • 620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 300, King Of Prussia, PA 19406
    View Robin B. Snyder's office location
  • Robin B. Snyder is a shareholder with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin in the firm's Healthcare Liability Practice Group. Robin is also the managing attorney of the firm's Scranton and Williamsport offices. Currently, she concentrates her practice in the defense of medical malpractice and school civil rights cases, including education and employment law. However, she continues to handle some premises and motor vehicle cases as she also serves as the Scranton office's leader of the casualty and healthcare groups.
  • Overall Rating

    4.5
    .
    1 Reviews
  • Overall Rating

    4.5
    .
    1 Reviews
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #26 in weekly profile views out of 975 Attorneys in King Of Prussia, PA
    • #67,526 in weekly profile views out of 2,346,995 total attorneys Overall
Attorney Awards
About Attorney Awards

Biography

Robin is the Director of the firm's Health Care Department, and is responsible for the day-to-day operations and supervision of our health care attorneys. She is also a member of the firm's Board of Directors. From 2003 - 2017, Robin served as the Managing Attorney of the firm’s Moosic office.

Robin concentrates her practice in the defense of medical malpractice for physicians, nurses, hospitals, dentists and long term-care facilities. Her past litigation experience also includes defending school civil rights cases, which gives Robin a unique perspective in handling mental and behavioral health cases. Throughout her 29-year career with Marshall Dennehey, Robin has tried more than 40 cases to verdict, including medical malpractice and civil rights cases. As a seasoned litigator, Robin has served as a coach for the firm's Mock Trial program, providing guidance and mentorship to young attorneys as they hone their litigation skills.

Following graduation from The Pennsylvania State University in 1987, Robin worked with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and attended law school at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware.

Robin is an elected associate member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), a national association of experienced trial lawyers and judges that works to enhance the civil trial jury system. She is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Health Care (2023-2027)

Classes & Seminars Taught

•Navigating Medical Malpractice: Insights into Pennsylvania’s Legal Landscape, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Healthcare Summit, Harrisburg, PA, May 22, 2024
•A Comparison of the Damages Awarded and Key Issues in Various Healthcare Jurisdictions, ILG360 London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
•Business and Practice of Law Post-COVID-19: How Will It Change?, Pennsylvania Bar Association webinar, November 11, 2021
•Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation - Where Do We Stand One Year Later?, Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May 2021
•Telehealth and Documentation in the Time of COVID-19: Information and Best Practices to Protect Patients and Clinicians webinar, April 23 and May 14, 2020

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability

Medical Malpractice Venue Rule Overturned

August 26, 2022

By Order dated August 25, 2022, effective January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pennsylvania’s venue rule, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006, by deleting Rule 1006(a.1), which provided that medical malpractice actions must be filed “only in a county in which the cause of action arose.” Although this Rule change will not take effect until January 1, 2023, it will significantly change where many medical malpractice actions are filed.The effect of deleting Rule 1006(a.1) is to make medical malpractice actions subject to the same venue standards that apply to all other types of cases, which may be filed where (in relevant part) a defendant may be served, the cause of action arose, or a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose.Yesterday's Rule change will significantly expand the counties in which medical malpractice actions may be filed, with an expected increase in certain counties, primarily Philadelphia.This change eliminates a centerpiece of the Supreme Court’s own tort reform effort 20 years ago. By Order dated January 27, 2003, the Court promulgated Rule 1006(a.1) requiring medical malpractice actions to be filed only where the cause of action accrued. The result was a significant decline in medical malpractice filings statewide.The Order accompanying the Rule change states: “This Order shall be processed in accordance Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective January 1, 2023.” This language likely means that the amendment to Rule 1006 will apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 2023, regardless of when the cause of action accrued. When the Supreme Court promulgated Rule 1006(a.1) in 2003, the effective date applied to filings, and this Rule change likely will apply the same way.When Rule 1006(a.1) was promulgated in 2003, many plaintiffs rushed to file their medical malpractice actions before the Rule change took effect. We will likely now see the reverse trend: plaintiffs will wait until on or after January 1, 2023, to file new actions in venues that they view as more favorable.Finally, in addition to Rule 1006(a.1), there is a statute-42 Pa.C.S.A. 5101.1(b)-that requires medical malpractice actions to be filed where the cause of action arose. However, that statute was declared unconstitutional in North-Central Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers v. Weaver, 827 A.2d 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), on the basis that venue is a matter for the Supreme Court, not the legislature. Yesterday’s Order suspends any statute that is inconsistent with Rule 1006 as amended, so it is likely that the amended Rule, not the statute, will govern venue in medical malpractice cases beginning on January 1, 2023. Legal Update for Health Care Liability - August 26, 2022, 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 [email protected]. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

News

•106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2026

•Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

June 1, 2026

Areas of Practice (6)

  • Medical Malpractice
  • Dental Malpractice
  • Behavioral Health Risk & Liability
  • Catastrophic Medical Injury
  • Employment Law
  • School Leaders' Liability

Education & Credentials

University Attended:
The Pennsylvania State University, B.A., 1987
Law School Attended:
Widener University Delaware Law School, J.D., 1993
Year of First Admission:
1993
Admission:
1993, Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
Memberships:

Associations & memberships

American Board of Trial Advocates, 2022 - present
Lackawanna County Bar Association - Board of Directors, 2016-2018; Civil Rules Committee, 2015-2018

Reported Cases:
Representative Cases & Matters: Represented a hospital-based laboratory and its pathologists in an alleged misdiagnosis of breast cancer case. As a result of the diagnosis, which was interpreted as ductal carcinoma in situ, plaintiff underwent a lumpectomy and removal of lymph nodes resulting in mobility limitations and radiation which damaged her breast. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the laboratory and its pathologists.; Obtained a defense verdict after a nine-day trial in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The 52-year-old plaintiff presented to the emergency department with chest pain and stroke-like symptoms. She was administered 25 mg Phenergan IV in her hand, twice, and when her symptoms resolved and the MRI was clean, she was discharged. She returned two days later complaining of swelling in her hand and was diagnosed with infiltration. She claimed she developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and that she was disabled and unable to continuing working. Phenergan carries a Black Box warning that subcutaneous injection or perivascular extravasation may cause necrotic tissue. The jury found that the doctor, nurse and hospital did not breach the standard of care.; Tried a First Amendment political retaliation/freedom of association case in which she represented a school district. Plaintiffs alleged they suffered economic loss as a result of their political activities in supporting board members who ultimately lost the election. More significantly, plaintiffs alleged the retaliation occurred because they were friends with one another. Although we lost the case, after filing post-trial motions, the judge ordered a new trial, agreeing that his charge incorrectly implied that plaintiffs had a protected right of association for the purely social aspects of their relationships. We ultimately settled the case.; Successfully secured summary judgment in a case where plaintiff, a student at the University of Scranton/Wyoming Valley Healthcare System School of Nurse Anesthesia, was placed on academic probation and dismissed from the university. His complaint contained four causes of action, which were all dismissed: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) denial of due process; and 4) tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed.; Involved in a major case involving alleged abuse of seven minor autistic students. Through their parents, they claimed they were assaulted by their teacher in violation of their constitutional rights, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder. Represented the school district where the alleged abuse occurred and its administrators. Successfully had the 14th Amendment claim against the individuals dismissed. The school district had an indemnification clause in its contract with the entity that employed the teacher, and, ultimately, the case settled for multi-millions, none of which was paid by the school district.
ISLN:
900152649

Peer Reviews

4.5/5.0 (1 review)
Martindale-Hubbell® Distinguished Rating Badge
  • Legal Knowledge

    4.5/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.5/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.5/5.0
  • Communication

    4.5/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.5/5.0
Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed.

Client Reviews Write a Review

Location

Contact Robin B. Snyder

Contact Information

Preferred contact method
reCAPTCHA is required Invalid reCAPTCHA

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.