What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
On October 4, 2024, Linda Farrell and Heather Carbone (both of Jacksonville, FL) made presentations at the Northeast Florida International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) 2024 Fall Forum. Linda’s presentation was titled “Medical-Marijuana-Workers’ Compensation,” and Heather was part of a panel that discussed “Legal Updates/Changes Impacting Florida.”
The September 2024 issue of Defense Digest our firmwide newsletter, contained articles from two members of our Workers’ Compensation Department. Linda Wilson (Wilmington, DE) wrote “What Makes a Disease a Compensable Occupational Disease?” David Levine (Roseland, NJ) wrote “When a Hotel Swim Becomes a Work Duty: The Implications of Terhune v. Port Authority.”
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Pennsylvania-based industrial linear actuator supplier on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant appealed a termination order which found her to be fully recovered from work injuries to the low back and multiple other body part. The claimant alleged on appeal that factors considered by the underlying judge supporting the full recovery opinion (including a post-injury new slip and fall) were not borne out by the evidence record. To the contrary, Tony successfully argued on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge’s decision was based on cross examination of claimant’s own medical expert, where he gleaned a history from the claimant of subsequent injuries that were never disputed by the claimant in follow-up testimony. The Appeal Board held that the judge can only decide cases based on evidence before the court, and the Appeal Board would not over-turn the judge based on new allegations of the claimant (after closure of the evidence record) about her post-injury history.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in litigation surrounding a penalty petition filed by the claimant. The penalty alleged that the university unilaterally suspended indemnity benefits on an open and accepted work injury claim. Tony presented complex evidence from the insurer that Pennsylvania’s WCAIS electronic system has internal problems that result in unwanted and unrequested claim documents being issued when simple data changes are made to an open claim. Tony was able to prove that the carrier properly suspended the claim in the system and any and all updated “acceptance” documents filed by the WCAIS system were on the basis of a faulty data system. Moreover, the sequence form filings in the electronic space (as opposed to the paper filings) conclusively demonstrated timely filing of all documents and no unilateral suspension. The penalty petition was dismissed in its entirety.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) secured a decision denying the claimant wage loss benefits for an accepted work injury. The claimant sustained a left wrist contusion and extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) peri-tendonitis injury when a 50-pound lid crushed his left arm in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant alleged that as a result of the injury, he was unable to perform light-duty work as a system operator. Through medical evidence, Kacey was able to establish that the claimant had non-work-related medical issues unrelated to the accepted work injury that caused him to be out of work. The workers’ compensation judge found the defendant’s expert testimony more credible than that of the claimant’s medical expert. Wage loss benefits were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant/employer.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 10, October 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.