.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 2025

August 1, 2025

 

NOTICE

Beginning September 2, 2025, in Pennsylvania, medical fee review applications will be required to be submitted electronically in WCAIS. Pease reach out to any of our Pennsylvania attorneys if you have questions.

 

RESULTS*

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) was successful in having a Petition to Determine Compensation Due, asserting a different date of injury, dismissed. The Industrial Accident Board denied the claimant’s Motion to Amend a Petition to reflect a different date of loss because the amendment was made more than two years from the date of the alleged work accident. The pending petition was dismissed, and any new petition with the “corrected” date of loss was barred by the statute of limitations.

Robin Romano, and Michael McMaster on brief (both of Philadelphia, PA), were successful in having a Claim Petition denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged she was hurt when a customer’s car backed into her on purpose. The claimant was later terminated from employment for belligerence to the customer. The employer’s surveillance video showed that the car barely made contact with the claimant. Fact witness testimony by the employer’s district manager, authenticating the footage and detailing the reasons for her termination, plus the testimony of two defense medical experts, convinced the workers’ compensation judge that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Robert Schenk (Philadelphia, PA) was successful in having a Claim Petition denied. The claimant alleged he sustained an injury to his right elbow when he tripped and fell at work. The workers’ compensation judge denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim, finding no injury or disability. In doing so, the judge noted that the claimant’s testimony as to how he was injured was completely inconsistent with video from the employer’s workplace. The claimant’s testimony was basically that a pallet jack violently hit him and threw him to the floor, causing his injuries. The video showed the claimant tripping over a pallet jack. It also showed him getting up and continuing to work

Audrey Copeland and Tony Natale (both of King of Prussia, PA) convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in favor of our client, the employer, which upheld the workers’ compensation judge’s denial of a Claim Petition. By Memorandum Opinion, the court found that the judge’s credibility findings were neither contradictory nor arbitrary and capricious and that the decision was reasoned. The court agreed with the employer that the defense experts’ opinions constituted substantial evidence, also noting that the Social Security Administration’s findings of disability were irrelevant to the issue of work-relatedness. The court concluded that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving a work-related injury, and since the causal connection between her “lingering symptoms and her work duties” was not obvious, she was required to present unequivocal medical evidence establishing that connection, which she failed to do. 

Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) received a significant positive outcome at trial. The petitioner sustained a significant injury in July 2013 and later filed a claim for permanent/total disability benefits. Given the petitioner’s age and the exposure of the case, had the petitioner been successful at trial, he would have received more than 26 years of benefits; an indemnity exposure of $556,000. Prior to trial, the petitioner refused to accept any settlement offer below permanent/total disability benefits. Trial began on July 8, 2025, with the petitioner’s testimony. Following the petitioner’s testimony, the judge dismissed the petitioner’s claim for permanent/total disability benefits and recommended a partial disability settlement, which equated to approximately $57,000 in total exposure, which the petitioner accepted. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 65-year-old, 35+ year employee of a renowned international automobile corporation who sustained a left knee injury on June 19, 2023. Michele secured medical records that support a significant pre-existing history—with a prior left knee replacement and treatment leading up to June 1, 2023—and resulted in establishing that the only work injury sustained was a left knee contusion. Further, the opinions of the defense medical expert, a board certified orthopedic surgeon with a sub-specialty in the treatment of the knees, were found competent and credible, supporting a full recovery based upon his comprehensive physical examination and his review of records and diagnostic studies. The workers’ compensation judge further found the employer had a reasonable basis to contest all issues and denied attorney’s fees. Such a decision will result in a substantial recoupment of indemnity and benefits payments made throughout the course of the litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement recovery. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Penalty Petition filed which alleged that Supreme Court precedent allows the finding of a penalty when a carrier does not immediately issue an award check after a decision on the merits. The check was issued 19 days after the decision (and within the 30-day time period commonly accepted in the business for payment of awards). The claimant argued that payment should have been made within one day of the award. The case turned on legal precedent concerning the efficacy of statements made in dicta versus common sense practice. The case held implications for procedure on payments of awards in Pennsylvania. After hearing oral argument, the court held that the employer’s argument was more logical and supported by the preponderance of the case law. The Penalty Petition was denied and dismissed by way of complete defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Claim Petition filed by the claimant, a police officer for the township. The claimant was called to the scene of an active shooter barricaded in his home. The officer was placed in a strategic position outside the home with weapon drawn. The standoff lasted many hours but was resolved peacefully when SWAT arrived. The claimant finished his shift and went home. The next morning he awoke with headaches, nausea, double vision and dizziness. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with mini-stroke, nerve palsy and resultant diplopia—he was disabled from working. He presented a neurologist whose deposition was riddled with objections since the neurologist tried to read into the record (and at times misread into the record) the diagnoses of a neuro-ophthalmologist. The neurologist then tried to argue that the claimant’s condition was a psychological injury in origin. All objections were sustained by the court. The employer presented the opinions of a board certified neuro-ophthalmologist, who opined that the claimant has no work-related injury. The court found the employer’s evidence to be more believable, and the claim petition was dismissed—full defense verdict.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

NEWS

Blake Hood (Jacksonville, FL) was recently appointed as co-chair of the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Social Security/Workers’ Compensation Committee. 

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) was recently elected by his peers to serve a two-year term as a Council Member on the Allegheny County Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Section Committee. 

William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) authored the article “Medical Marijuana in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law,” which appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal’s Cannabis Supplement published on July 11. The article discusses developments since the 2021 Hager decision (Vincent Hager v. M&K Construction, 246 N.J. 1 (2021) and recent shifts in the legal landscape as state and federal laws have evolved with regard to medical marijuana. You can read the article here.

Elias Hassinger (Philadelphia, PA) recently participated in the firm’s Advanced Trial Advocacy and Mock Trial program. This year marked the 25th anniversary of our cornerstone training program that brings together attorneys from across our 19 offices to try a full civil case in our in-house courtroom. Participants gain invaluable experience under the guidance of senior litigators and alumni. Congratulations to Eli and all of this year’s participants for a job well done! 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 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

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

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

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.

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. 

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

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

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.