On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Is Happy to Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories*

Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2019

In a workers’ compensation appeal, Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended against the claimant’s appeal of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s decision that reinstated the claimant’s total disability status as of June 20, 2017—the date of Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Board (Derry Area School District), 161 A.3d 827, 841 (Pa. 2017)(“Protz II”). The claimant argued that the Appeal Board was required to reinstate total disability back to the date of his IRE, September 10, 2013. The court held that, in accordance with the en banc Whitfield v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Board (Tenet Health System Hahnemann LLC), 188 A.3d 599 (Pa.Cmwlth.), neither the original IRE date nor the Protz II date were applicable. The court also held that the claimant’s total disability status could be reinstated no earlier than the date he filed his review petition and the claimant bore the burden of proving continuing disability. Womack v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Board (Philadelphia Parking Authority), 2019 Pa.Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 129 (Commw.Ct. Mar. 13, 2019).

Audrey also convinced the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss a case filed in Philadelphia based on forum non conveniens, without prejudice, to refile in an appropriate forum. The plaintiffs were out-of-state residents, the alleged exposure and all medical treatment occurred out of state, but some defendant entities were alleged to have Pennsylvania connections. The Superior Court reasoned that it was within the trial court’s discretion to weigh some of the public and private factors considered in such an analysis more heavily than others, and the fact that cases with similar facts had different results did not establish that the trial court abused its discretion. Rhyne v. United States Steel, et al., 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 638 (Pa.Super. Feb. 22, 2019).

^{*Prior Results Do Not Gaurantee A Similar Outcome}

^{Defense Digest, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2019. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}