.

Shannon Fellin

Portrait of Shannon Fellin

Shannon concentrates her practice exclusively in workers' compensation, representing trucking companies, restaurants, construction companies, candy manufacturers, boroughs/municipalities, colleges, hospitals, agricultural businesses, distribution centers and staffing agencies in all manner of matters related to workers' compensation. She takes a hands-on approach to working with clients, actively engaging them in an open dialogue regarding topical issues relevant to their business. Shannon works closely with employers to develop policies and procedures to reduce workers' compensation exposure and to educate them on the Workers' Compensation Act.

Shannon also devotes a portion of her practice to representing boroughs and municipalities. She works together with their solicitors and actuaries to coordinate case strategy and to reach the best outcome for the employer.

In recognition of her exemplary work as a defense attorney, Shannon was recognized as Pennsylvania's "Lawyer of the Year" for Workers' Compensation Law - Employers in Harrisburg for 2022 and 2024. To read more about this honor, click here

Shannon graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Delaware, where she was also admitted to the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. In 1996, she received her juris doctor from The Dickinson School of Law. Following law school, Shannon served as a law clerk for several Workers' Compensation Judges in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, she was an associate attorney litigating workers' compensation and social security cases.

    • Penn State Dickinson Law (J.D., 1996)
    • University of Delaware (B.A., cum laude, 1992)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, "Lawyer of the Year," Harrisburg Workers' Compensation Law – Employers (2022, 2024)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers (2009-2027)
    • Best Lawyers, Central Penn Business Journal (2015)
    • Dauphin County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Workers' Compensation Bench and Bar Best Practices 2023, Pennsylvania Bar Association, April 27, 2023
    • What Do You Want From Your Defense Attorney?, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 18, 2018
    • Best Practices to Avoid Common Workers' Compensation Mistakes, Lorman Education Services webinar, June 29, 2017
    • Back on the Job! Returning Injured Workers To Gainful Employment, Human Resource Professionals of Central Pennsylvania Fall Conference, October 27, 2015
    • Top Mistakes in Workers' Compensation, Susquehanna Human Resource Management Association, January 20, 2015
    • Impact of Positive Drug Results on Workers' Compensation Cases, Keystone Case Management, April 17, 2013
    •  A Work Injury from A to Z, Keystone Case Management, April 4, 2012
    • Workers' Compensation from an Employer's Perspective, Susquehanna Human Resources Management Association, Lewisburg, PA, March 20, 2012
    • PA Forms, Petitions and Case law, Sedgwick CMS, July 7, 2011
    • Workers' Compensation and the Employer, Marshall Dennehey workshop, April 30, 2010
    • Case Law Updates and Use of Vocational Testimony in Workers' Compensation Cases, Coventry, September 30, 2008
    • Top Ten Mistakes Made by Adjusters, School Claims Services, December 7, 2007
    • Legal Updates, Cambridge, September 19, 2007
    • WC Skit and Case Updates, PMA Lehigh Valley and Harrisburg, March 29, 2007
    • Employment Law & Workers' Compensation Update, MD Employment Law Seminar at Hershey Antique Car Museum, July 28, 2006
    • Workers' Compensation 101, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, June 15, 2006
    • Subrogation, Credits and Offsets, Murray Insurance, February 16, 2006
    • Legal Updates (PA), Gallagher Bassett, January 11, 2006
    • Trends in Pennsylvania Law, Sedgwick CMS, October 28, 2005
    • Judge's Unplugged, moderator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation Seminar, May 20, 2005
    • Case Law Updates, Liberty Mututal, July 15, 2005
    • Case Law Updates, Liberty Mutual, July 23, 2004
    • PA Forms, Petitions and Appeals, Sedgwick CMS, March 19, 2004
    • Case Law Updates, School Claims Services, June 13, 2003
    • “Quasi Expansion of Employers’ Premises by Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2020
    • “Claimant’s Counsel Must Refund Erroneously Granted Attorneys’ Fees,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017
    • "Controlling Medical Costs in PA Workers' Compensation Claims," PRIME Watch, the PennPRIME Liability and Workers' Compensation Trust Newsletter, Fall 2014
    • "How Employers Can Assist With the Mediation Process," Prime Watch Newsletter, Summer 2013
    • "Avoid Post-Settlement Surprises by Carefully Drafting Settlement Documents," Defense Digest, Volume 19, No. 2, June 2013
    • "How Employers Can Assist in the Investigation and Defense of Workers’ Compensation Claims," Prime Watch Newsletter, Fall 2012
    • "Notice This: the Commonwealth Court Relaxes the Requirements for the Notice of Ability to Return to Work Form (LIBC-757)," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2010

Thought Leadership

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Availability of Direct Deposit for Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement

January 23, 2025

The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is now offering direct deposit (electronic transfer) of Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement checks. To use this option, you must be a registered Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vendor.  The Bureau has provided the linked guide to set up direct deposit. All vendor registration instructions and forms can be found by clicking here: Office of Budget Website, then navigating to the “Popular Topics” section. Select the “Find Vendor Registration, Information, and Tools” tile, and click on the “Direct Deposit and E-Remittance” button. Select the appropriate link, based on the first digit of your vendor number. If you do not have a vendor number, you should follow the link on the page to register for a “Non-Procurement” vendor number. You can also sign up for E-Remittance from this page, which is strongly recommended as it will provide you with an email notification up to three days in advance of a direct deposit payment to your vendor record.  Please contact any of our Pennsylvania workers' compensation attorneys if you have any questions.    What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert – January 23, 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.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert

January 10, 2024

In Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias (WCAB), 1039 C.D. 2021, filed November 14, 2023, a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that claimants are entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket payments for cannabidiol (CBD oil), as it is both a medicine and supply under the Workers’ Compensation Act, without requiring submission of billing forms.   On behalf of the carrier, an appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 14, 2023. The carrier presented four questions for review:    1.    Does CBD oil fall under the “medical services” or “medicine and supplies” language of Section 306(f.)?;  2.    Are employers required to reimburse claimants for health food store purchases of CBD oil without any supporting documents, medical records, HCFA forms or prescriptions?;  3.    Does Section 306(f.1) mandate direct payment to a claimant for out-of-pocket expenses for “medicine and supplies” without submission of any supporting medical records, HCFA forms or prescriptions?; and  4.    Do the cost containment regulations apply to a claimant’s purchase of dietary supplemental or CBD oil?    Of note: This type of appeal is discretionary. According to our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepts approximately five percent of the appeal requests it receives. It typically takes four to six months for the court to decide if an appeal will be accepted. Marshall Dennehey will continue to monitor this appeal and provide updates as available.      What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert – January 10, 2024, 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 © 2024 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.

Events

Firm Highlights

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

The Ohio Supreme Court Extends Sham-Affidavit Rule to Contradictory Expert Reports

Legal Roundup: Ohio In its June 23, 2026, decision in Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision to strike an expert witness’s affidavit that contradicted the opinions expressed in the expert’s prior report. This case pertains to allegations of medical malpractice after plaintiff Cheri Moore gave birth to an infant in respiratory distress who required intubation. Moore alleged that a delay in ordering an emergency cesarean section resulted in the need for intubation, causing her child’s injuries. Specifically, Moore sued Dr. Meniru, who completed his first shift at 7:00 a.m. on May 28, 2015, and did not resume treating Moore until 7:00 a.m. on May 29, 2015. One of Moore’s expert witnesses authored a report stating that the doctors, including Dr. Meniru, deviated from the standard of care by not advocating for a cesarean section in the evening of May 28, 2015. Based on this report, Dr. Meniru moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged breach occurred during a period when he was not on duty. In response to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed an affidavit from the same expert. Although the expert expressly incorporated his previous report into his affidavit, he also offered an additional opinion: that Dr. Meniru breached the standard of care by failing to begin a cesarean section within 30 minutes of receiving reports of fetal distress. Dr. Meniru filed a motion to strike the expert’s affidavit, arguing that it contradicted the opinions set forth in his prior report in violation of the sham-affidavit rule. The sham-affidavit rule applies to “a contradictory affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story, or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment”. Moore, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237. The trial court granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted two questions of law: (1) whether the sham-affidavit rule applies when the sworn testimony contradicts prior unsworn statements; and (2) whether an inconsistency within the affidavit goes to credibility or admissibility, justifying an order striking the affidavit. Previous rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the sham-affidavit rule have pertained to contradictions between an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony. See, e.g., Byrd v. Smith, 2006- Ohio-3455, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47. However, here, the Court was asked to apply the same rule to contradictions between a sworn affidavit and an unsworn expert report. The Court held that, because Moore’s expert incorporated his prior report into his affidavit, he effectively adopted the report as part of his sworn testimony.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions

Legal Roundup: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for health care defendants to obtain dismissal at the preliminary objection stage. In DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, the court held that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfied Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements despite the absence of individually named negligent actors. In DaSilva, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that Abington Memorial Hospital was directly and vicariously negligent after the patient, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was left unattended by hospital staff, exited the emergency department, and was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. The trial court sustained the hospital’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating plaintiffs “failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence [and] set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence and vicarious liability claims under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The court concluded that allegations describing the patient’s condition, the hospital’s awareness of that condition, and the alleged failure to monitor or prevent elopement were adequate to satisfy Pennsylvania’s pleading requirements. Significantly, the court rejected the hospital’s argument that the complaint failed because it did not identify the specific employees responsible for the alleged negligence. Instead, the court found that generalized references to “emergency room staff” were sufficient to place the hospital on notice of the claims because “the names of those who performed services for the plaintiff are known to the defendant or can be ascertained during discovery.” Id. at *12 (citing Est. of Denmark ex rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300, 307 (Pa. Super. 2015)). The effect of DaSilva is that plaintiffs may proceed past the pleading stage with relatively generalized allegations, particularly in cases involving institutional defendants where relevant details are uniquely within the defendant’s control. As a result, health care defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.