Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

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

June 1, 2019

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.

 

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."