.

Michele R. Punturi

Director, Workers' Compensation Department

Shareholder

Portrait of Michele R. Punturi

As Director of the Workers' Compensation Department, Michele oversees more than 35 attorneys throughout nine of the firm's offices. She is also a member of the firm’s Board of Directors. Michele has been with the firm for more than 35 years, and has been a shareholder in the Worker’s Compensation Department since 1998. Michele represents third party administrators, insurance carriers and self-insureds, handling matters for construction companies, steel product and technology companies, hospitals, retailers, supermarkets, hotels, personnel corporations, landscaping contractors, assisted living facilities, townships, and manufacturers. In addition to her managerial and litigation responsibilities, Michele supervises client development efforts for the Workers’ Compensation Department.

During her career, Michele has successfully defeated numerous claim petitions by presenting medical and factual evidence showing that the claimants did not sustain work-related injuries and/or corresponding disabilities. Her innovative legal strategies have included requesting the judge's presence at the employer's premises. In addition, Michele has argued numerous cases in front of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board and has taken multiple cases to the Commonwealth Court.

In March 2022, Michele was inducted into the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers, joining a select group of attorneys from across the country who have distinguished themselves in the practice of workers' compensation law.

Michele has lectured for various organizations, including the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance and Philadelphia Bar Association. She has published many articles and educational/training materials and has authored a chapter on workers' compensation in the prestigious West Pennsylvania Forms and Commentary Employment Law treatise.

Michele graduated cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh and the Widener University School of Law. Michele's success is due in large part to the care and dedication she exhibits to each client and the attention to detail shown in her work. It is these characteristics that have led many of her clients to look to her as a sounding board for business and legal advice.

Michele is active in the community, donating her time to a host of charitable organizations including Northern Children's Services and the American Cancer Society.

Results

Successfully Prosecuted a Workers’ Compensation Termination Petition

We 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. We secured medical records supporting a significant pre-existing history—with a prior left knee replacement and treatment leading up to June 1, 2023—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, thus 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.

Termination Petition Involving Low Back Injury Successfully Prosecuted

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition involving a low back injury for a delivery truck service company. Our expert opined that the MRI failed to reveal any acute or post traumatic findings, that the claimant only sustained a soft tissue lumbar sprain/contusion and the exam revealed no objective findings. The workers’ compensation judge found our expert’s opinions were well-supported and terminated all liability.

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.