.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 5, May 2025

May 1, 2025

NEWS

Congratulations to A. Judd Woytek, shareholder in our King of Prussia office, on being selected among the “Top Lawyers of the Lehigh Valley” by The Morning Call newspaper. Judd was recognized for Workers’ Compensation litigation.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia) is presenting as part of PBI and PBA Workers’ Compensation Law Section “Tough Problems in Workers’ Compensation 2025” on June 12. Designed specifically by and for the experienced workers’ compensation practitioner, this webcast highlights select challenges in workers’ compensation practice and offers techniques for managing them. Developments, practices, strategies, and preferences are discussed by your colleagues, your opponents, and judges to help you avoid making mistakes that could negatively affect your client’s claim. Delve into best practices for overcoming obstacles during case preparation and presentation. Mike is presenting as part of a panel (another attorney and a judge) on “Surveillance and Using Social Media to Win Your Case.” More info is here.

RESULTS*

Michael McMaster (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant installing a large garage door in a warehouse when the door fell and struck his leg, later requiring an amputation. The claimant alleged both physical and severe psychological injuries. The claimant was the 100% owner of the company, and when he purchased workers’ compensation insurance, he signed an acknowledgement that as the owner he would not be considered an “employee” under the Act. At the first hearing, Mike moved to bifurcate the matter for a decision on whether the claimant was covered under the Act. The workers’ compensation judge granted this motion. At the next hearing, Mike argued that the claimant was not an employee under the Act and, therefore, not entitled to receive any benefits. Mike submitted both the original application for insurance, where the claimant signed the acknowledgement, and a copy of the policy that was effective at the time of the injury, which included a form stating that the claimant had previously agreed to not be considered an employee. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Petition to Suspend on behalf of a Berks County mushroom growing facility and successfully suspended the claimant’s indemnity benefits for abandoning available employment. The claimant sustained a fall from a height, injuring a disc in her spine. The employer secured medical evidence releasing the claimant to return to restricted duty work. A job offer was issued. The claimant returned to work earning her pre-injury wages. The claimant alleged that, even though the job was light duty in nature, her back pain was so crippling while working that, “I could not even walk.” The claimant treated at a local hospital and ultimately abandoned the job. Tony submitted the hospital records into evidence, which revealed “no back pain” and “no trouble ambulating.” 
  • Successfully defended a national interstate trucking company before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant sustained a head injury with post-concussive syndrome during a collision brought on by the claimant’s epileptic seizure. The claimant was disqualified from ever returning to work as a truck driver based on his non-work-related epilepsy condition. He continued to allege symptoms of post-concussive syndrome and maintained his right to continue to collect workers’ compensation benefits. In the underlying action, Tony presented evidence (including the claimant’s own treating neuropsychologist) which the court found to prove full recovery from all injuries. The claimant appealed to the Board, alleging the workers’ compensation judge disregarded substantial evidence in support of ongoing disability. Tony made a two-pronged argument, citing to the fact that the claimant’s appeal did not conform to statutory requirements and the evidence of record demonstrated that the claimant’s work injury resolved and the driving force behind the appeal was to keep the claimant collecting benefits since he could not work due to a non-work-related condition. 

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Defeated a Fatal Claim Petition for death benefits for a mother, brother and son. The decedent was found dead in the cab of his truck from diabetic ketoacidosis. The workers’ compensation judge found our evidence supported that the employee did not suffer a work-related fatality. 
  • Defeated the claimant’s appeal before the Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s decision, which found the Claim Petition was appropriately dismissed as the claimant was an independent contractor. The Board found that the judge issued the appropriate credibility findings as to the witnesses, which fully supported the Decision.

Francis Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully defended two Claim Petitions for two separate injuries. The claimant worked as a delivery driver for the employer and alleged suffering a concussion and injuries to his right shoulder on October 31, 2021, and November 2, 2022, from tripping and falling at locations where he was making deliveries. The employer accepted his November 2, 2022, work injury, but only as to his left elbow. The claimant returned to his regular work after the November 2nd injury and continued working until January 2023, when he took a severance from the employer. He then filed Claim Petitions for the two injuries. During litigation, Frank forced the claimant’s expert orthopedic surgeon and neurologist to admit that no concussion or right shoulder injuries were suffered in either incident by confronting them with Emergency Room records, which showed no such injuries were reported by the claimant. Based on these experts’ admissions, the workers’ compensation judge found their testimonies to be not credible and dismissed the Claim Petitions. The judge also granted a Termination Petition Frank filed as to the November 2, 2022, injury. 

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition in a case where the claimant cut her thumb in a blender while working for the employer. In granting the employer’s Termination Petition, the workers’ compensation judge credited the opinions of our medical expert that the injury was nothing more than a simple laceration with no nerve or tendon damage. The judge awarded a small closed period of benefits and then terminated benefits completely as of the date of our IME. The judge also found that physical therapy treatment beyond the date of the IME was not reasonable, necessary or related.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

Firm Highlights

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.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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®

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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.

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.

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

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. 

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