.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2025

January 1, 2025

NEWS

Congratulations to Kiara Hartwell (Mount Laurel, NJ), who was elected a shareholder of the firm effective January 1, 2025. A member of the Workers’ Compensation Department since 2016, Kiara devotes her practice to defending employers, insurance carriers and self-insureds in workers’ compensation matters. She authors the New Jersey updates for our What’s Hot monthly workers’ compensation newsletter and frequently writes for external publications. Admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Kiara is a graduate of New York University and Rutgers University School of Law.

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was recently honored with the John J. Schickel Professionalism and Excellence Award by the E. Robert Williams Inn of Court. Well deserved!

On February 12, 2025, Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) will join a panel at CLM 2025 Focus Conference: Work Comp, Casualty and Risk Management in Lake Buena Vista, FL. In “Workers’ Comp Risk Management Best Practices: Insights from High-Risk Industries,” the panel will address the ongoing challenges of workers’ compensation in high-risk industries. The presenters will share customized risk management strategies, from talent acquisition and safety program development to effective injury management for smooth employee reintegration. For more information, visit https://lm.theclm.org/event/showeventdescription/29195. 
 

 

RESULTS*

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) received a favorable decision from the Industrial Accident Board. The Board accepted the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, which acknowledged lumbar spine and cervical spine injuries related to a work accident, although they fully resolved and the claimant returned to his preexisting baseline condition. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) reports five recent successful outcomes for our clients. In the first case, Tony successfully defended a Berks County mushroom farm from a claimant’s appeal challenging a full recovery termination award issued by the underlying court, as well as a dismissal of a penalty request/review challenging the nature of the adjudicated injury. The claimant alleged on appeal that the underlying decision of the court was predicated upon “hired-gun” experts and the court should have “nullified” this evidence. Interestingly, as pointed out in the litigation, the claimant was the only party that relied on a “treating expert,” who was hired by the claimant attorney’s to become the “treating physician” in the case. The Appeal Board systematically rejected the claimant’s “appeal to hypocrisy,” and the underlying court decision was affirmed in entirety.

Tony also successfully defended a Pennsylvania medical equipment manufacturing company in the litigation of claim and penalty petitions. The Claim Petition involved an alleged shoulder injury with a judgment on the pleadings due to a late answer. Tony forced the claimant to admit on cross examination that he left work due to reasons other than the alleged shoulder injury. Tony also forced claimant’s medical expert to admit that the claimant was actively treating for a pre-existing shoulder condition which he withheld from the court and the defense expert. The court found the claimant and his expert not to be credible and dismissed all petitions in their entirety, resulting in a complete defense verdict.

Tony received a full defense verdict on behalf of a Pennsylvania medical equipment manufacturing company in the litigation of a claim petition involving an alleged ankle and Achilles Tendon injury. The claimant alleged, while “stepping backwards” at his work station, he felt immediate pain. Tony cross examined the claimant’s medical expert and established that this expert did not treat the claimant for his ankle or Achilles Tendon, was unaware the claimant had a prior ankle fracture with surgery, and admitted the current surgery and disability were the result of a degenerative condition arising out of the prior, unrelated ankle fracture. 

Tony also successfully defended a Montgomery County police department in the litigation of a Claim Petition. The claimant, a police officer, attended an out-of-state extended-stay educational conference. One evening after the conference activities ended, the claimant attended a “booze cruise” where she was imbibing with conference attendees, and she continued to socialize and party back at the hotel. Later that night, she entered her hotel suite (which was shared with another female officer), shining her flashlight in order to change clothes. While changing, her roommate became perturbed over the ruckus. An argument between the two officers ignited and soon thereafter full-fledged fisticuffs. The claimant alleged physical injuries, post-concussive syndrome, mental injuries and total disability. Tony cross examined the claimant and developed an evidence supporting she was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury. Tony also presented medical witnesses to support that the claimant did not suffer from post-concussive syndrome or any disabling physical or mental injuries. 

In a workers’ compensation case of first impression in Pennsylvania, Tony successfully defended a Berks County mushroom canning facility from a Claim Petition alleging repetitive trauma injuries to the upper extremities. The claimant worked as a machine operator and alleged that over time his duties caused nerve injuries to both upper extremities. Tony presented medical expert testimony which supported the existence of these nerve damage conditions in the upper extremities but challenged causation. In a modified Frye challenge to the claimant’s medical expert opinions, Tony argued through expert testimony that the state of science and medicine overwhelmingly supports the fact that “repetitive trauma” is not a substantial contributing factor to the development of carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndromes. While the court allowed the claimant to present expert testimony to the contrary, it ultimately found Tony’s expert testimony opinions to outweigh the claimant’s experts’ testimony. The court concluded for the first time in Pennsylvania that carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome is not borne out through alleged repetitive trauma. 

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA) received a favorable decision where the judge terminated the claimant’s wage loss and medical benefits and denied claimant’s Review Petition to expand the nature of injury based on the opinion of the independent medical examiner. The claimant’s Petition to Review alleged the work injury included cervical radiculopathy, requiring surgical intervention, as well as disfigurement. After reviewing deposition testimony from the claimant, her treating physician and the independent medical evaluator, the judge was specifically persuaded that the claimant did not sustain a cervical spine injury; thus, the surgery was not related as her complaints to her neck did not begin until nearly a week after the original fall. Thus, the claimant’s medical and indemnity benefits were terminated and the review petition was dismissed in its entirety. 

Robert Schenk (Philadelphia, PA) successfully had the claimant’s Claim Petition denied by the judge, and in doing so, the judge found the claimant’s testimony as not credible. Robert established the claimant did not report a work-related injury until after she had been advised light-duty work was only available for employees injured on the job, along with surveillance evidence showing the claimant returning and working on the date of injury with no apparent injury. The claimant’s testimony about prior injuries was also in conflict with contemporaneous hospital records and those medical records showed the claimant had prior low back problems, with no new trauma being reported to the emergency room on the date of injury. 

In another matter, the judge granted Robert’s Petition to Review Medical Treatment. This would have been a termination petition, but the employer’s medical expert found the claimant fully recovered from only two of the three injuries. The judge found the testimony of the employer’s medical expert credible and granted the petition.

In a final case, Robert defended a Claim Petition where the judge awarded wage loss benefits for only three months and then terminated benefits based on the medical opinion of the employer’s medical expert.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received three favorable decisions recently. In the first case, Judd successfully defended a Claim Petition that alleged a hip and low back injury. Judd presented video evident showing the claimant limping when he arrived at work the day of the alleged injury. The workers’ compensation judge credited the video and the opinions of our medical expert in denying and dismissing the Claim Petition. 

In a second case, Judd successfully prosecuted a termination petition, arguing a full recovery from a left hand and low back injury. The workers’ compensation judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, that the claimant had fully recovered from his injuries. 

Finally, Judd successfully obtained orders in two separate cases directing the claimants to appear for IMEs as they had no valid excuse for their failure to appear for the IMEs the first time.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2025, 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 © 2025 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.

Firm Highlights

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

MD Selected a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a 2027 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by Best Lawyers®

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

News

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office