What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
John Paul Abda’s (Scranton, PA) article “PTSI and First Responders: Act 121—A New Era in Pa. Workers’ Compensation” was published in The Legal Intelligencer’s November 10, 2025, Labor & Employment Law/Workers’ Compensation Supplement. Read John Paul’s article here.
RESULTS*
Patricia McDonagh (Roseland, NJ), a member of our appellate group, won an affirmance by the New Jersey Appellate Division of orders granting summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. Our client and the plaintiff were co-employees of the subcontractor, which did not carry worker’s compensation insurance as required by the Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was paid worker’s compensation benefits by the general contractor’s insurance carrier pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-79. The appeal presented issues of whether the plaintiff was an employee or a casual employee of the employer and whether a general contractor/subcontractor relationship existed and worker’s compensation benefits were properly paid to the plaintiff, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-79.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 62-year-old, 16 year+ employee of a well-known local hospital who sustained an injury to the low back. Michele’s efforts to secure medical records supporting a significant pre-existing history leading up to the work injury resulted in successfully defending a Review Petition, which sought to expand the injury beyond a low back sprain. Further, the opinions of the defense medical expert, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, were found competent and credible to support his opinion of a full recovery. His findings were based upon a comprehensive physical examination of the claimant and his review of medical records and diagnostic studies. The expert opined that the claimant’s complaints of pain were completely out of proportion to the testing and findings. Further, the medical records established that the claimant’s own treating physician had supported the claimant’s physical capabilities far greater than was demonstrated at the IME exam, further establishing an inconsistency. This decision will result in a substantial recoupment of payments of indemnity benefits throughout the course of the litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Recovery.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 12, December 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 © 2023 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.