What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2025

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

NEWS

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars

We are pleased to announce that Kiara Hartwell and Adam Huber (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) have been selected to the 2025 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. 

 

RESULTS*

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The Worker’s Compensation Judge granted the Review and Termination Petitions and denied the claimant’s Review Petition. The claimant fell approximately 20 feet from a ladder while climbing off a roof. He landed on his feet and sustained bilateral calcaneal fractures. The employer issued a Notice of Compensation Payable accepting bilateral ankle fractures. In his Termination Petition, Michael alleged a full recovery and filed the Review Petition to amend the description of injury to bilateral calcaneal fractures instead of bilateral ankle fractures. The claimant, too, filed a Review Petition to amend the description of injury to include traumatic neuropathic pain secondary to bilateral calcaneal fractures, lumbar spine strain, lumbar spine disc injury and bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. The workers’ compensation judge found the defense expert more credible than the claimant’s expert. 

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE):

  • The Industrial Accident Board rejected the claimant’s allegation that she sustained a 40% permanent impairment to the left arm caused by complex regional pain syndrome. The claimant’s expert used the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment to arrive at 40%. Instead, the Board accepted the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, who relied upon the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides. The Board concluded that the appropriate rating was 13% to the left upper extremity.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a claimant who tripped at work and sustained an injury to the knee. The claimant’s body habitus was one of morbid obesity prior to the injury. Expert medical evidence was presented demonstrating the work injury was limited to a contusion and that the significant degeneration in the knee was pre-existing and due to wear and tear related to morbid obesity. The court found the expert’s opinion of full recovery to be credible and limited the injury to a knee contusion which fully resolved, resulting in a complete defense verdict.
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant who was helping to lift a 400-pound slab when she felt her shoulder “pop.” After vigorous cross examination, the claimant admitted that she provided notice 122 days after the date of injury (which was untimely by the letter of the law). She then asserted that her injury was “repetitive trauma” and argued that each day she worked after the original incident caused a new injury. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical experts dispelled her theory of compensability. The court dismissed the Claim Petition on the bases of a violation of the notice provisions of the Act and on the lack of credibility of the medical experts presented. A complete defense verdict on all counts. 
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant, who slipped and fell down a flight of concrete stairs and alleged multiple injuries to body parts, from head to toe. The employer’s panel doctor found the work injuries limited to the claimant’s extremities. The claimant was referred by his attorney to a pain specialist who opined significant injuries to multiple body parts. However, claimant’s a expert was forced to admit that he has been practicing medicine for less than two years and only offered opinions about neck and back injuries—nothing else. The claimant alleged serious disc herniation injuries in the neck and back and still pursued other body part injuries in the litigation with no additional expert evidence. The employer presented an orthopedic surgeon who found no injuries on the date of his evaluation and opined that the claimant fully healed from any injuries he may have sustained. The court found only minor strains to the neck and back with a full and complete recovery (and no further benefits due). Allegations of multiple disc herniation injuries were dismissed as unrelated.
  • Successfully prosecuted a Suspension Petition involving a claimant who was released to return to work with restrictions and ultimately to full duty. She failed to return to her pre-injury position upon release to full duty, but she did return to alternate employment. Any wage loss was argued to be unrelated to the work injury since the pre-injury job was open and available. The court granted a suspension of benefits on this basis, resulting in a full defense verdict. 
  • Successfully prosecuted a third level appeal regarding Medicare conditional payments after an auto accident injury. This appeal centered on the federal government’s contractor who continually denied the company’s initial level appeals to limit conditional payment recoupment based on policy exhaustion. The court found the evidence submitted supported the auto policy at issue, the payments made on the basis of the policy and exhaustion of the policy after paying numerous medical bills. The government sought additional conditional payments and after a vociferous oral argument, the court found no additional conditional payments were due. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Modification Petition, establishing a significant reduction in dependent benefits as the claimant’s daughter was over 18 and was not enrolled as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, pursuant to § 307 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Based upon documentary evidence and a sound legal argument, the judge granted the decrease in weekly benefits and awarded a 100% credit against future benefits for the employer to recoup the overpayment that occurred beginning in 2023.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The workers’ compensation judge granted Petitions for Review of Utilization Review Determinations, finding the treatment by three of the claimant’s medical providers to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The treatments found unreasonable and unnecessary included electrical stimulation, chiropractic manipulation, PRP injections, Botox injections, pain patches, trigger point injections and office visits. 
  • The judge granted a Petition to Terminate benefits as the judge found the opinions of our medical expert competent and credible and terminated benefits as of the date of the IME. 
  • The workers’ compensation judge granted a Termination Petition and denied the claimant’s Review/Reinstatement Petition. The judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, that the claimant was fully recovered from his accepted low back strain and right shoulder strain and that surgery performed on the claimant’s shoulder was not related to the work injury. He also found the claimant’s own testimony to be inconsistent and not credible.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 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.