What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 5, May 2025

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

NEWS

Congratulations to A. Judd Woytek, shareholder in our King of Prussia office, on being selected among the “Top Lawyers of the Lehigh Valley” by The Morning Call newspaper. Judd was recognized for Workers’ Compensation litigation.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia) is presenting as part of PBI and PBA Workers’ Compensation Law Section “Tough Problems in Workers’ Compensation 2025” on June 12. Designed specifically by and for the experienced workers’ compensation practitioner, this webcast highlights select challenges in workers’ compensation practice and offers techniques for managing them. Developments, practices, strategies, and preferences are discussed by your colleagues, your opponents, and judges to help you avoid making mistakes that could negatively affect your client’s claim. Delve into best practices for overcoming obstacles during case preparation and presentation. Mike is presenting as part of a panel (another attorney and a judge) on “Surveillance and Using Social Media to Win Your Case.” More info is here.
 

 

RESULTS*

Michael McMaster (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant installing a large garage door in a warehouse when the door fell and struck his leg, later requiring an amputation. The claimant alleged both physical and severe psychological injuries. The claimant was the 100% owner of the company, and when he purchased workers’ compensation insurance, he signed an acknowledgement that as the owner he would not be considered an “employee” under the Act. At the first hearing, Mike moved to bifurcate the matter for a decision on whether the claimant was covered under the Act. The workers’ compensation judge granted this motion. At the next hearing, Mike argued that the claimant was not an employee under the Act and, therefore, not entitled to receive any benefits. Mike submitted both the original application for insurance, where the claimant signed the acknowledgement, and a copy of the policy that was effective at the time of the injury, which included a form stating that the claimant had previously agreed to not be considered an employee. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Petition to Suspend on behalf of a Berks County mushroom growing facility and successfully suspended the claimant’s indemnity benefits for abandoning available employment. The claimant sustained a fall from a height, injuring a disc in her spine. The employer secured medical evidence releasing the claimant to return to restricted duty work. A job offer was issued. The claimant returned to work earning her pre-injury wages. The claimant alleged that, even though the job was light duty in nature, her back pain was so crippling while working that, “I could not even walk.” The claimant treated at a local hospital and ultimately abandoned the job. Tony submitted the hospital records into evidence, which revealed “no back pain” and “no trouble ambulating.” 
  • Successfully defended a national interstate trucking company before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant sustained a head injury with post-concussive syndrome during a collision brought on by the claimant’s epileptic seizure. The claimant was disqualified from ever returning to work as a truck driver based on his non-work-related epilepsy condition. He continued to allege symptoms of post-concussive syndrome and maintained his right to continue to collect workers’ compensation benefits. In the underlying action, Tony presented evidence (including the claimant’s own treating neuropsychologist) which the court found to prove full recovery from all injuries. The claimant appealed to the Board, alleging the workers’ compensation judge disregarded substantial evidence in support of ongoing disability. Tony made a two-pronged argument, citing to the fact that the claimant’s appeal did not conform to statutory requirements and the evidence of record demonstrated that the claimant’s work injury resolved and the driving force behind the appeal was to keep the claimant collecting benefits since he could not work due to a non-work-related condition. 

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Defeated a Fatal Claim Petition for death benefits for a mother, brother and son. The decedent was found dead in the cab of his truck from diabetic ketoacidosis. The workers’ compensation judge found our evidence supported that the employee did not suffer a work-related fatality. 
  • Defeated the claimant’s appeal before the Appeal Board. The Board affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s decision, which found the Claim Petition was appropriately dismissed as the claimant was an independent contractor. The Board found that the judge issued the appropriate credibility findings as to the witnesses, which fully supported the Decision.

Francis Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully defended two Claim Petitions for two separate injuries. The claimant worked as a delivery driver for the employer and alleged suffering a concussion and injuries to his right shoulder on October 31, 2021, and November 2, 2022, from tripping and falling at locations where he was making deliveries. The employer accepted his November 2, 2022, work injury, but only as to his left elbow. The claimant returned to his regular work after the November 2nd injury and continued working until January 2023, when he took a severance from the employer. He then filed Claim Petitions for the two injuries. During litigation, Frank forced the claimant’s expert orthopedic surgeon and neurologist to admit that no concussion or right shoulder injuries were suffered in either incident by confronting them with Emergency Room records, which showed no such injuries were reported by the claimant. Based on these experts’ admissions, the workers’ compensation judge found their testimonies to be not credible and dismissed the Claim Petitions. The judge also granted a Termination Petition Frank filed as to the November 2, 2022, injury. 

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition in a case where the claimant cut her thumb in a blender while working for the employer. In granting the employer’s Termination Petition, the workers’ compensation judge credited the opinions of our medical expert that the injury was nothing more than a simple laceration with no nerve or tendon damage. The judge awarded a small closed period of benefits and then terminated benefits completely as of the date of our IME. The judge also found that physical therapy treatment beyond the date of the IME was not reasonable, necessary or related.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 5, May 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.