What's Hot In Workers' Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
In the April 2022 edition of CLM Magazine, Niki Ingram (Philadelphia, PA), member of our firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee, discusses minority underrepresentation in the insurance industry and ways to attract and retain talent. Read now: https://lnkd.in/dYSczbGg.
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a Berks County mushroom facility post-lumbar surgery. Despite the claimant undergoing work-related lumbar laminectomy and discectomy surgery, the preponderance of the medical evidence presented by Tony supported full recovery without residual and no resultant functional impairment due to loss of disc.
Tony also successfully argued for full recovery on behalf of a Philadelphia-based transportation company. The claimant had severe injuries due to a motor vehicle collision that sent the company van over an embankment. Tony was able to convince the trial judge that all injuries had fully and completely recovered without residuals, including injuries to the claimant’s head, neck, shoulders and back.
Finally, Tony was able to garner a dismissal of a claim petition on behalf of a Berks County trucking company. While the claimant was hauling mushrooms, he felt dizzy and exited his vehicle. After an episode of syncope, the claimant was whisked away by ambulance and treated at two different facilities on an emergency basis and was then admitted to a hospital in Reading, Pennsylvania, for cardiac work-up. The claimant was disqualified from driving a truck and remained out of work. Tony convinced the court that the admission to the hospital and the resultant disability was not work-related and was specifically due to an alleged cardiac problem.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf a multi-national automotive manufacturing corporation. Michele presented the testimony of a board certified orthopedic surgeon, who not only conducted a comprehensive physical examination, but had the opportunity to review pre- and post-diagnostic study films, which demonstrated that the claimant did not sustain any injury that resulted in any structural or anatomic change that would have an impact on the natural clinical course of pre-existing spinal degenerative disease. This was further supported by an initial EMG that was completely normal and a later EMG showing radiculopathy, supporting that if the claimant had sustained any traumatic radiculopathy, it would have been detected on the first EMG. As such, the subsequent EMG findings were due to the underlying degenerative process. Further, on cross-examination, Michele emphasized that the claimant’s experts failed to review all the prior medical records and compare the diagnostic studies and failed to support opinions to expand the nature of injury beyond that which was found compensable in prior litigation.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) prevailed on a lengthy case on behalf of a trash collection company. The case involved testimony from seven employer witnesses, in addition to medical expert testimony. Kacey successfully defended all petitions pertaining to the claimant’s claim, including review and penalty petitions. This high-exposure case—the claimant had an average weekly wage of $2,846 with a maximum compensation rate—was the result of the claimant being terminated for failure to timely report a work-related injury as per company policy.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition and defeated the claimant’s review petition in a case where the claimant had been struck by a forklift. The Judge found that the claimant suffered nothing more than a right hip contusion and lumbar sprain/strain, from which he had fully recovered as of the date of the IME. The claimant’s review petition, seeking to expand the injury to include an aggravation of lumbar degenerative disc disease with lumbar radiculopathy, trochanteric bursitis of right hip and sacroiliitis, was denied.
Judd also successfully defeated a claim petition in which the claimant was alleging an aggravation of a pre-existing non-work-related concussion injury. The claimant withdrew her petition when it became clear that she would be unable to meet her burden of proof.
Judd successfully defended a claim petition where the claimant was seeking benefits for the time period he had to quarantine after a possible COVID-19 exposure. The claimant admitted that he never tested positive for COVID. The judge agreed with Judd’s argument that the claimant had, therefore, not suffered an injury or contracted an occupational disease under the Pennsylvania Worker’ Compensation Act. The claim petition was denied and dismissed.
Judd successfully prosecuted a petition to compel a claimant to undergo an MRI of his knee, which the claimant opposed due to allegedly having metal in his eye. The claimant admitted, however, that he had previously had MRIs performed. The judge directed the claimant to undergo x-rays of his eyes and, if clear, to undergo the MRI of the knee.
Judd successfully prosecuted a second petition to compel an IME where the claimant had refused to cooperate with the IME doctor’s office and complete informational questionnaires. He also brought a priest along to the IME. The judge ordered the claimant to attend the rescheduled IME and complete the requested questionnaires and forms.
Judd was partially successful in defense of a claim petition and in prosecution of a termination petition. The judge agreed with Judd’s argument that the claimant had failed to present any evidence of disability related to his October 2020 injury until the date of his shoulder surgery in February 2021. The judge also granted a partial termination of benefits with regard to the claimant’s cervical and lumbar injuries.
Finally, Judd was successful in defending a claimant’s appeal from a judge’s decision which denied the claimant’s claim petition, denied the claimant’s utilization review petition and granted the termination petition related to a medical-only NCP. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety by crediting Judd’s arguments raised at oral argument and in his brief.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 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.