.

Anthony Natale III

Chair, Medicare Compliance Practice

Shareholder

APNatale@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Anthony Natale III

Tony devotes his practice to Pennsylvania workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, municipal law (Heart and Lung Act), and federal Longshore and Harbor workers' compensation. He focuses on high-exposure, complex litigation including repetitive trauma claims, occupational disease and hearing loss claims, as well as chemical sensitivity claims. He also actively represents the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association in regard to workers' compensation matters. In addition, Tony is the Chair of our Medicare Compliance Practice.

Tony has represented law firms, financial institutions, forging companies, steel mills, transportation companies, aeronautical/space manufacturers, universities and hospitals in various types of workers' compensation and unemployment compensation matters. He has handled multiple high-exposure workers' compensation chemical and toxic tort claims involving mass defendants, and he has had a high success rate in having clients dismissed from same.

Tony is the founder of Marshall Dennehey's in-house workers' compensation Continuing Legal Education program. He is also frequently called upon to speak to insurance companies and self-insured employers in the areas of workers' compensation and employment law.

    • Successfully argued that viewing the September 11 terrorist events and suffering a psychological condition did not rise to the degree of a work injury under Pennsylvania law.
    • Refined the interpretation of workers' compensation case law as it relates to the staute of limitations regarding death claims from medication abuse.
    • Successfully defeated and/or resolved at base value more than 400 high-exposure hearing loss cases in western and eastern Pennsylvania.
    • Successfully defended 50 late answer high-exposure claim petitions in eastern and middle Pennsylvania in 2007.
    • Successfully handled multiple heart attack and psychological claims.
    • Successfully handled multiple toxic tort (asbestos, silica) cases.
    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1988)
    • Pennsylvania, 1991
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (2025-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2026)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Average Weekly Wage, panelist, Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers' Compensation Fall Section Meeting, September 12, Hershey, Pennsylvania
    • How to Deal With Difficult Litigants, Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation webinar, May 11, 2023
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Hot Topics in Workers' Comp and Litigation Trends, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, PA, September 20, 2022
    • "Insurance Defense Attorneys Combat Workers' Compensation Fraud,"AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, August 31, 2022
    • What People Do For Money:  Identifying Claimant Fraud In Workers’ Compensation Cases, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2022 
    • The Right Way to Avoid a Wrongful Termination Claim When the Employee Is Also a Workers’ Compensation Claimant, Marshall Dennehey webinar, March 3, 2022
    • Navigate the Medicare Maze: A Practical Guide to Understanding Medicare Set-Asides, Marshall Dennehey webinar, November 19, 2020
    • Decisions, Decisions: A Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 28, 2020
    • HR Webinar Series Part I: Workers' Compensation Basics, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, February 13, 2020
    • Workers' Compensation and Medicare Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • Identifying Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • The Interplay Between Traumatic Brain Injuries and Fraud in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 24, 2019
    • Influence of Pharmaceuticals and Changing Landscape in Workers' Comp Medical Costs, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 9, 2019
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update; and Workers' Compensation Fraud, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360, June 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Ignore the Data! 2018 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Pocono Manor, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 12, 2018
    • Biggest Mistakes Companies Make in Complying with Workers’ Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, November 28, 2017
    • Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • If You See Something, Say Something – Detecting Workers' Compensation Fraud, Pennsylvania’s 2017 Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 6, 2017
    • Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminars, October 19 and 27, 2016
    • Pennsylvania's Workers’ Compensation Law: Best Practices for Complying with Benefits, Understanding the Flow of a Workers’ Compensation Claim, and Tips to Prevent WC Fraud, PA Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, September 30, 2016
    • Check the Rulebook: Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, June 2015
    • Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2015
    • UC/WC 101 Benefits Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 19, 2015
    • PEO's effect on Guaranty Fund: Insurance Company Perspective, Fund Perspective and Counsel Perspective, NCIGF 2014 Fall Workshop, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2014
    • Case Law and House Bill Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 30, 2014
    • Social Media and Workers’ Compensation, and Handling Unusual WC Situations, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, Hershey, Pennsylvania, October 1, 2014
    • Workers' Compensation Medical Fraud and Abuse, CEU Institute, June 25, 2014
    • Busted! Identifying, Proving And Prosecuting Workers' Compensation Fraud, National Workers' Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit, Uncasville, Connecticut, February 4-5, 2014
    • Understanding the Most Common Mistakes Made in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, December 3, 2013
    • Tri-State Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Roadmap to Success - Understanding Workers' Compensation, Marshall Dennehey seminar, October 24, 2013
    • FrankenFraud – The New Employee Monster, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, November 30, 2012 
    • Workers' Compensation 101 Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, June 8, 2012
    • Unemployment Claims Fraud: Protect Your Organization from Bogus Jobless Claims, Center for Competitive Management, April 19, 2012 
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 8, 2012; King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 16, 2012
    • The Interplay Between the Pennsylvania Heart and Lung Act and the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, AmeriHealth Casualty webinar, August 25, 2011
    • Top Ten Defenses to a Fee Review Action, Chubb Seminar, April 2011; discussion about the problems associated with provider fraud in fee review applications and a 10-point analysis on how to properly defend these cases
    • Workers' Compensation Primer, Drexel Seminar, March 2011; an analysis on how to defend workers' compensation actions in a university setting
    • Pennsylvania Claims Handling (monthly seminars in PA, NJ and DE), 2002-present
    • Defending Pennsylvania Claims, Boston, 2008
    • Prosecuting Fraud Under New Guides, Texas, 2006
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Law and Claims Handling, Michigan, 2001
    • Case Law Updates to various insurers on monthly basis, 1998-2000
    • Prosecuting Fraud, 1997
    • Pennsylvania Forms Seminar, 1997
    • Act 57 Amendments, 1996
    • How to Defend Hearing Loss Cases, 1994
    • ADA and Workers' Compensation Act, five Pennsylvania cities, 1992
    • "Compensating the Boys of Fall - College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?"CLM Magazine, October 22, 2025 
    • "Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare is Watching,"The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 10, 2023
    • "Why do Claimants Lie? Because They Can and Swift Prosecution is the Only Way to Deter It,"CLM Magazine, June 2023
    • "The State of Pay-For-Play: College Athletes as Employees and the Implications for Workers' Compensation," CLM Magazine, September 2021
    • "Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act and the Student-Athlete: The Ultimate Mismatch," Pennsylvania Lawyer, September/October 2019
    • "Suicide Squeeze: An Overview of Pa. Workers' Comp and the Pro Athlete," The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 30, 2018
    • "If You See Something, Say Something - The Importance of Identifying and Reporting Workers' Compensation Fraud," CLM Magazine (page 10), August 2017
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Guide, Eighth Edition, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, contributing author, 2016
    • "The Treating Physician: A Misnomer in Workers' Comp Litigation," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 25, 2015
    • Insurance Agency Risk Management: E & O Exposures By Line of Business, chapter on workers' compensation, 2014 edition
    • "Practical Ramifications of Supreme Court Determination Involving Latent Manifestation of Occupational Diseases Under the PA Workers' Compensation Act," CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, April 2014.
    • "PEOs: A New Potential for Workers' Comp Fraud? A Close Look at Professional Employer Organizations," National Underwriter Property & Casualty, October 2013
    • "Fee Review Litigation: An Overview," Pennsylvania Self-Insurers' Association newsletter, May 2011
    • "Retirement Does Not Mean Retirement When You are Collecting Workers' Compensation Benefits," The Philadelphia Lawyer, Summer 2011
    • "Ding Dong Kachinski's Dead: Commonwealth Court Declines To Resuscitate," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2010
    • Articles in Defense Digest and the Pennsylvania Self-Insurer's Association's publications

Results

View all
man with sling signing contract photo

Defense Verdict Obtained Involving an Employment-Related Shoulder Injury

Defense Verdict Secured in a Case Centered on an Employment-Related Low Back Injury

We received a defense verdict on our termination petition in a case where the claimant sustained a low back injury when he slipped and fell in an elevator during his employment. The employer had an IME wherein the claimant was pronounced fully recovered from strain injuries. The claimant presented evidence that alleged disc injury and ongoing radiculopathy. The matter proceeded to litigation and a decision on the merits. The court found the employer’s expert to be credible as to full recovery based on the finding that no architectural change could be identified between the claimant’s diagnostic studies when compared to studies from before and after the work injury.

Thought Leadership

View all

Compensating the Boys of Fall. College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?

October 22, 2025

College sports may soon face the ultimate call: player or employee?

Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare Is Watching

October 2, 2023

The workers’ compensation practitioner has now become a forced bedfellow of CMS, like it or not. If you fail to “issue spot” in relevant settlements, you will have problems.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

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

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Ellen C. Bodenmiller Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Tampa Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Traditionally More Expansive Concept of Occupational Causation

The Florida Supreme Court issued a significant decision rebuking the First District Court of Appeal (1st DCA) in the high-profile case of Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance Co., a case addressing the compensability of workplace injuries resulting from assaults by third-party tortfeasors. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found the claimant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, relying in part on the Florida Supreme Court's earlier decision in Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria from 1980. In Strother, the Court upheld an award of benefits to a cashier who was assaulted and robbed by individuals who followed her home from work under the mistaken belief that she was carrying restaurant cash deposits. In Bouayad, the 1st DCA concluded that the claimant's injuries were not compensable because they did not arise out of his employment. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the 1st DCA applied too narrow an interpretation of the "arising out of employment" requirement. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a broader and more traditional view of occupational causation than that recently adopted by the 1st DCA. The claimant in Bouayad was the general manager of a car rental business operating from a hotel near an airport. Around midnight, while walking along a covered outdoor walkway from the hotel's atrium, where the rental kiosk was located, to an office near the pool, he was shot multiple times by an unidentified assailant. As part of his regular duties, the claimant carried rental agreements and cash receipts from the kiosk to the office at the end of each shift. After the shooting, the claimant managed to return to the hotel atrium, where he stated that he believed "Robert" had shot him, referring to an individual who had threatened the claimant's son the previous day. The assailant, however, was never identified. Consequently, the Supreme Court analyzed the case as involving an unknown third party while the claimant was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The central issue therefore was whether the injury "arose out of" the claimant’s employment. At the final hearing, the claimant presented evidence regarding the risks and hazards associated with his employment, including the nature of his duties, his late-night work schedule, and the location of the business in a high-turnover hotel near a major airport. His expert opined that these factors exposed him to an increased risk of becoming the victim of a crime while at work. In contrast, the employer/carrier's expert characterized the shooting as a targeted attack rather than a robbery and asserted that the risk of violent crime was actually higher near the claimant's residence than at the hotel. Based on that analysis, the expert concluded that the claimant was not exposed to an increased workplace risk. The 1st DCA focused narrowly on the specific activity the claimant was performing at the moment of injury. According to the court, the claimant's “work performed” at the time of the shooting was simply "walking" between two employer-operated locations, and that act of walking did not itself cause the injury. The Florida Supreme Court found this analysis far too myopic and inconsistent with decades of workers' compensation precedent. Reaffirming longstanding principles of workplace causation, the Court explained that the proper inquiry is not whether the precise physical task being performed at the moment of injury directly caused the harm. Rather, the relevant question is whether the employment, viewed as a whole, exposed the worker to risks and hazards that contributed to the injury. The decision is significant because it reinforces a broader conception of work-relatedness in the “arising out of” compensability analysis. Instead of limiting the causation analysis to the employee's discrete physical activity at the time of injury, courts must consider the totality of the employment circumstances, including the employee's duties, work environment, hours, and occupational risks. Under that framework, an injury may arise out of employment when the employment places the employee in a position of increased hazard, even if the specific task being performed at the moment of injury is not itself the direct cause of the harm.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Deemed Worker an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement; Insurer Estopped from Denying Coverage

In this case, the claimant filed a Claim Petition for injuries sustained on October 28, 2019, naming J&S as his Employer, and alleging that the injuries occurred when he fell from a ladder while installing a satellite dish for Dish Network. Dish Network contracted with J&S to install satellite dishes. Subsequently J&S filed a Petition to Join Brickstreet Insurance Company and the claimant filed a Claim Petition against the Uninsured Employer Guaranty Fund. The Fund then joined Dish Network as another employer.  Before the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), the claimant testified that he was hired in 2015 by J&S and at the time signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (IC Agreement). J&S defended the case on the basis that the claimant was not an employee, but was an independent contractor, even after the IC Agreement expired. Additional evidence showed that, at the time of the October 28, 2019, work injury, J&S’ workers’ compensation insurance with Brickstreet had lapsed, even though a Brickstreet agent had been working to renew J&S’ policy and had a Certificate for coverage from September 25, 2019 to September 25, 2020 issued, with Dish Network listed as the Certificate Holder. A renewal policy was not in effect at the time the Certificate was issued and the agent learned on October 25, 2019 that Brickstreet was not going to renew their policy with J&S, due to an unpaid premium.    Ultimately, the WCJ found that the claimant was an employee of J&S at the time of the work injury and that J&S did not have a workers’ compensation policy in place at the time, due to their failure to pay the renewal premium to Brickstreet. The WCJ also found Dish Network was a Statutory Employer under Section 302(a) of the Act. The Claim Petition and the Guaranty Fund Claim Petition were both granted, as was the Guaranty Fund’s Petition to Join Dish Network. The WCJ also denied J&S’ Petition to Join Brickstreet, finding that neither J&S or Dish Network showed that Brickstreet was estopped from denying coverage. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) and the Board affirmed. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court rejected J&S' argument that the claimant was an independent contractor. In doing so, the court noted that the claimant credibly testified that he worked for J&S full time, could not work for another company, and that J&S, scheduled his jobs, tracked him, and scheduled additional installations, if he finished early. Additionally, the court noted the claimant lacked discretion in the manner he performed his job, because all questions had to be referred to J&S.  As for Dish Network’s appeal, the court held that the WCJ erred in holding that Brickstreet was not estopped from denying coverage as to Dish Network. According to the court, the insurance agent was an authorized representative of Brickstreet and, at the direction of J&S, issued the Certificate of Insurance that he knew was not accurate at the time, and was aware would be presented as proof of coverage for J&S. Dish Network relied upon that information and continued to use J&S, ultimately leading to Dish Network being named as the Statutory Employer liable for payment of benefits because of J&S’ uninsured status. The court held that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ ’s conclusion that Dish Network did not establish that Brickstreet was equitably estopped from denying coverage, reversed the decision below, and remanded the case to the WCJ. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirmed Trial Judge’s Orders Granting Summary Judgement for Defendants on COVID-19 Case

In Dunne v. Advanced Subacute Rehab Servs. at Sewell, LLC, et al., the plaintiffs appealed from two Law Division orders. By way of background, Louis Doto, Sr. (Doto) worked for BP & SC Services, Inc. (BP). BP leased Doto to Advanced Subacute Rehabilitation Center at Sewell, LLC (Advanced Subacute) and it had control of his work, paid wages, and had the power to hire or fire him. A BP employee was assigned to the facility to train and supervise him and BP was responsible for securing workers’ compensation coverage. Doto worked as an aide in the laundry department. Linen from COVID-19 residents were delivered in clearly marked bags and he had no direct contact with residents. A co-worker, Sheila Smith, was also an aide and she never contracted COVID-19 at the facility. Advanced Subacute did not require Doto to wear an N-95 mask, but instead a surgical mask, though N-95 masks were available to all employees. He was also required to attend period mandatory meetings with other high-risk employees, the last of which he attended was in November 2020. All employees were required to test for COVID-19 and there were no reported cases from June to October 2020. On December 23, 2020, Doto tested positive for COVID-19 and passed away on January 18, 2021. The last member of housekeeping that Doto may have encountered tested positive 22 days earlier. After his death, OSHA found two “serious” violations concerning the N-95 masks worn by housekeepers. In response, Advanced Subacute fit tested all non-clinical staff. Doto’s estate filed a workers’ compensation claim and named both BP and Advanced Subacute as his employer. The estate received an award. In July 2022, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Law Division, alleging wrongful death and survivor causes of action. In October 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing: 1) immunity pursuant to the Emergency Health Powers Act: 2) the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act; 3) Doto’s inability to establish infection at the facility; 4) net expert opinions by the plaintiffs’ expert; and 5) inadmissibility of the OSHA report. The plaintiffs opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing: 1) no immunity as Advanced Subacute engaged in gross negligent or willful misconduct; 2) no preclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Act as Doto was not Advanced Subacute’s employee; and 3) no net expert opinions. In February 2025, the judge issued a written decision granting the defendants’ motion. Specifically, he found Advanced Subacute’s COVID-19 immunity precluded the plaintiffs’ claim as no reasonable jury could find any gross negligence or utter disregard for Doto’s safety. He also addressed the other defenses for completeness. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and the judge issued another written decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion in April 2025. The plaintiffs then appealed both decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the orders for reasons stated by the judge in his written decisions. The Appellate Division only added: 1) Advanced Subacute acted consistently with the legislative grant of immunity; 2) there was no doubt Doto was an employee of both BP and Advanced Subacute and the latter may have inadvertently failed to follow some precautions; and 3) confirmed the plaintiffs’ experts did not identify a basis for their opinions. Ultimately, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the judge’s well-reasoned decisions and affirmed the judge’s orders.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute