.

Robin M. Romano

Portrait of Robin M. Romano

As a member of the Workers' Compensation Department, Robin focuses her practice on the defense of workers' compensation matters. She represents self-insureds, including temporary employment agencies, warehouses, hospitals and businesses, as well as major insurance carriers and third-party administrators.

Robin partners with employers, brokers and third-party administrators, placing a high priority on consistent communication to best serve the interests of all parties. She tailors her results-driven approach to a client's specific needs, whether it involves litigating a case to conclusion or working toward an early resolution, and she is always mindful of their bottom line. 

With more than 35 years of experience practicing exclusively in workers' compensation in the Philadelphia area, Robin has earned a favorable reputation among her peers, judges and the claimant's bar. 

Robin is a graduate of Dickinson College, and she received her juris doctor from T.C. Williams School of Law in Richmond, Virginia. She is the former vice president and original master of the Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers' Compensation American Inn of Court, and she served as a past co-chair for the Workers' Compensation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Outside of the office, Robin enjoys saber fencing, and can often be found bouting at her fencing club or competing at tournaments.

    • University of Richmond School of Law (J.D., 1986)
    • Dickinson College (B.A., cum laude, 1983)
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers (2026)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association - Workers' Compensation Section, former co-chair; Arts Committee, member
    • Civility in Practice, Pennsylvania Bar Association's Workers' Comp Fall Section Meeting, Hershey, PA, September 12, 2025
    • How to Deal With Difficult Litigants, Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation webinar, May 11, 2023
    • Considerations Surrounding a Discharge, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Hot Topics in Workers' Comp and Litigation Trends, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, PA, September 20, 2022
    • Emotional Intelligence: The Art of Friendly Persuasion, Workers' Compensation Compliance Crusher: 2021 Update on Hot Topics in Workers' Compensation Practice, Philadelphia Bar Association, August 20, 2021
    • Coverage Issues, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • The Meat and Potatoes of Affirmative Defenses, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, April 3, 2017
    • Understanding Medical Records, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2016
    • Double Play: What Happens When Your Claim Crosses Multiple States?, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • From Kachinski to Phoenixville Hospital: Proving Earning Capacity in the Modern Era, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 30, 2014
    • From Kachinski to Phoenixville Hospital: Proving Earning Capacity in the Modern Era, Philadelphia Bar Association, July 11, 2014
    • How to Succeed at Mediations Without Really Trying, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, Philadelphia, PA, November 30, 2012 
    • Co-presenter regarding the use of panel physicians in the workers' compensation arena, Teach and Treat Self-Insured Seminar at Marshall Dennehey, October 21, 2010 
    • Co-presenter at the Philadelphia Chapter of Occupational Medicine Nurses regarding dissecting medical records, March 24, 2010 
    • Presenter at Nationwide in-house seminar regarding Medicare fraud, December 10, 2009 
    • Co-presenter at SRS in-house seminar regarding the Interplan between FMLA, ADA and Workers' Compensation, October 5, 2001 
    • "For The Record: Hunt Down Medical Files to Clarify Your Defense Strategy," CLM Magazine, June 2018
    • "Immunity from Testimony Under the Workers’ Compensation Act," Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2015
    • "Voluntary Retirement Cases: an Evolving Burden of Proof," Pennsylvania Self-Insurer's Association Newsletter, November 2011; Defense Digest, March 2011
    • "An Overview on the Compensability of Psychiatric Injuries," Counterpoint, October 1995 
    • "Ex parte Contact With a Treating Physician," Counterpoint, July 1993 
    • "Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Under the Workers' Compensation Act," Counterpoint, July 1992 

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.