Matthew R. Shindell
Matthew R. Shindell is a Member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law & Litigation and Insurance Coverage & Casualty Litigation Groups. His practice primarily concentrates on the defense of medical malpractice claims against physicians, nurses, medical practice groups, hospitals, long-term care facilities and community clinics. Mr Shindell also defends complex liability claims involving consumer products and industrial equipment. In addition, he routinely handles complex commercial litigation cases. He regularly writes articles for legal, consumer and trade publications on topics pertaining to his areas of practice.
Mr. Shindell has experience at the trial and appellate levels. For example, he recently earned a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case involving an underlying nursing home matter as well as a non-suit in a professional liability action against an attorney.
Mr. Shindell is AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Moreover, he has been selected as a Super Lawyer, Rising Star from 2010 to 2016 and a Super Lawyer since 2017.
Mr. Shindell was featured in a Legal Intelligencer Article discussing a Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas ruling on Nov. 10, 2020. This ruling agreed with Mr. Shindell that plaintiffs may not pursue a corporate negligence claim against mental healthcare facilities. This ruling may clarify Pennsylvania law.
- Bengal Converting Inc. v. Dual Printing, 2012 WL 831965 (E.D.Pa. 2012) – In this breach of contract action, Mr. Shindell had the plaintiff’s negligence claim dismissed pursuant to the Gist of the Action Doctrine.
- Katz v. St. Mary Medical Center, 816 A.2d 1125 (Pa.Super. 2003) – In this medical malpractice action, the Court agreed with Mr. Shindell’s argument that a defendant-physician is not required to provide expert testimony at a deposition unless he or she plans to testify at trial in that regard.
- Lynch v. Gander Mountain Co., 2013 WL 4543517 (M.D. Pa. 2013) – In this product liability action, Mr. Shindell convinced the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s strict liability claims because they failed to comply with the Third Restatement of Torts.
- Marsulex Environmental Technology v. Selip SPA, 247 F.Supp. 3d504 (M.D. Pa. 2017) – In this product liability action, the Court agreed with Mr. Shindell’s argument that plaintiff’s strict liability claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine.
- QBE Ins Corp. v. Walters, 148 A.3d 785 (Pa.Super. 16) – In this declaratory judgment action, Mr. Shindell successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by an assault and battery exclusion in the applicable insurance policy.
- ABOTA National Trial College, Harvard Law School, 2012
- Widener University School of Law, J.D., 2001
- University of Maryland at College Park, B.S., 1998
- Commercial Litigation
- Health Care Law & Litigation
- Insurance Coverage & Casualty Litigation
- New Jersey
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
- U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
- Defense Research Institute (DRI)
- National Association of Manufacturers
- Claims and Litigation Management Alliance
- Fellow, ABOTA National Trial College
- Judge of Elections, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania – Whitemarsh Middle