.

Ryan A. Hauck

Portrait of Ryan A. Hauck

An experienced litigator, Ryan has spent more than a decade defending employers, insurance companies and third-party administrators in worker’s compensation matters throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. This experience has afforded him the opportunity to develop professional relationships not only with his clients, but also with judges and opposing attorneys. 

Ryan has defended all types of workers’ compensation claims with low to high exposure arising from orthopedic injuries, traumatic brain injuries, amputations/loss of use, hearing loss, scarring and occupational diseases, and death claims. He has secured positive results for a wide array of clients, from Fortune 500 companies to locally owned family businesses, including regional and national insurance companies and third-party administrators, banks, commercial retailers, manufactures, restaurants, staffing agencies, trucking companies, school districts, churches, nursing homes, medical facilities and construction companies.

From the moment a claim is assigned, Ryan’s goal is to achieve a fast and favorable resolution, whether through settlement or litigation. His approach is simple: listen to his clients and communicate with them, early and often, to understand their objectives and formulate and implement an aggressive pragmatic strategy. In addition to his trial work, Ryan counsels clients on all aspects of workers’ compensation claims management, including pre-litigation issues and compensability determinations. He works closely with clients to develop a creative risk management strategy focused on reducing workers’ compensation exposure in the most cost effective manner possible. Ryan is also experienced in the resolution of Medicare compliance issues that arise in the settlement of workers’ compensation claims.

Within the firm, Ryan serves as a member of the Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders. 

An active member of the local legal community, Ryan belongs to the Allegheny County Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Coalition. He was elected by his peers (in 2019, 2023 and 2025) to serve a two-year term on the Council of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section. This committee analyzes all phases, questions and problems in the field of workers' compensation, and attempts to resolve problems that are identified within the practice of workers' compensation through the interaction with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation and its administrative personnel.  Additionally, the committee is responsible to keep its members, the bar association, and the public informed of the various developments, amendments, and modifications in the statutory law and regulations relating to workers' compensation.  

Ryan graduated cum laude from Duquesne University School of Law. He received numerous accolades during his time there, including the Honorable Carol Los Mansmann Excellence in Writing Award, the CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Legal Research and Writing, and the Outstanding Appellate Brief and Oral Argument Awards. While completing his undergraduate degree at Westminster College, Ryan served as a member of a national fraternity and was a two-year basketball letterman.

When Ryan is not advocating on behalf of his clients, he enjoys tailgating and attending Pittsburgh Steeler games, golfing, riding bikes and fishing. Most of all, he enjoys spending as much time as possible with his wife, Ashley, and two children Gavin and Shay.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., cum laude, 2011)
    • Westminster College (B.A., 2007)
    • Pennsylvania, 2011
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers (2025-2026)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers (2022)
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Coalition
    • Specific Loss / Disfigurement, Pennsylvania Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Fall Section Meeting, Hershey, PA, October 13, 2023
    • Strategies to Limit Exposure and Minimize Risk, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Successfully defended a six-figure workers’ compensation claim in which the claimant alleged back and leg injuries and sought over $60,000 in past wage loss plus ongoing benefits. By collaborating closely with the employer, we preserved and presented key surveillance footage, coupled with compelling medical evidence and strategic cross-examination, to challenge the claimant’s factual and medical assertions. The result was a complete denial of the Claim Petition.
    • Successfully defended a claim petition that alleged multiple orthopedic fractures and dislocations to the upper extremity, hip, and bilateral lower extremities. The claimant was seeking payment of past and future wage loss and medical benefits. The workers' compensation judge fully adopted our position that the claimant's injuries did not arise in the course and scope of employment. Through strategic reliance on case law, focused cross-examination and close collaboration with the employer to define property boundaries within a commercial complex, we established that the claimant was injured off the premises during an unpaid lunch break, was not furthering the employer's interests, and was not engaged in any activity authorized, directed or otherwise related to her employment at the time of her injury. This resulted in a complete denial of the claim and significant savings in litigation spend because the issue was bifurcated before having to participate in costly medical discovery and evidence.

Results

Thought Leadership

'Raymour' Decision Benefits Insurers and, Arguably, Claimants

October 7, 2021

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently issued a workers’ compensation decision favorable to employers and insurance companies which should reduce litigation on issues related to penalty and reinstatement petitions.

Defense Digest

Notice of An Injury Can Be Extended Beyond 120 Days

March 1, 2021

Key Points: Section 311 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act specifies the time that injured workers have for providing notice of a work injury to employers. Unless the employer has knowledge of the occurrence of the injury, the injured worker has to provide notice of a work injury within 21 days to be eligible to receive compensation from the date of injury and onward. If an injured worker does not provide notice within 21 days, no compensation is due until the day notice is provided. An injured worker will be barred from receiving benefits if notice of the injury is not provided within 120 days from the date of injury. In a case of first impression, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania “extended” the statutory time period for giving notice of an injury. An injured worker, in certain circumstances, now has up to 123 days to report a work injury! In Holy Redeemer Hosp. Systems v. WCAB (Figueroa), 2020 WL 7778193 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 31, 2020), the claimant was employed as an emergency room nurse when, on Saturday, July 25, 2015, she felt significant pain in her left leg. The claimant was scheduled to work on Sunday, July 26, 2015, but she called off and sought medical treatment from her physician, who removed her from work. The claimant did not report her work injury to the employer until Monday, November 23, 2015. The case was denied and disputed by the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier, which prompted the claimant to file a claim petition. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found that the claimant sustained a work injury, but that she didn’t provide timely notice under Section 311 of the Act. Specifically, the judge found that the claimant notified the employer of the work injury 121 days after the injury, or one day late. The claimant appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board), which reversed the judge’s finding of timeliness of the claimant’s notice to the employer. The Board noted that the 120th day fell on a Sunday and that Section 311 of the Act was silent as to whether notice needs to be given on a Sunday if the claimant’s notice obligations are set to expire. Accordingly, the Board looked beyond the Act to Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908, which states: When any period of time is referred to in any statute, such period in all cases, . . . shall be so computed to exclude the first and include the last day of such period. Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on a Saturday or Sunday, or any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, such day shall be omitted from the computation. The Board found that the claimant timely reported her work injury because she had until Monday, November 23, 2015, to report it. Although that date was 121 days after the work injury, the report was still timely because the 120th day fell on a Sunday, which is omitted from the computation per Section 1908.        Ultimately, the case reached the Commonwealth Court when the employer appealed the decision of the Board. The sole issue raised was whether the Board erred in finding that the claimant provided timely notice of the work injury. The employer tried to establish that nothing prevented the claimant from reporting her work injury on Sunday, November 22, 2015, and that the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 did not have an application to Section 311 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. In sum, the employer argued that she didn’t work for an employer who was open for business five days a week. Instead, she worked in the emergency room, which was open 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Furthermore, she was injured on a Saturday and even called off of work the next day. The Commonwealth Court acknowledged that neither the Act nor the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation provide guidance on how to calculate the 120-day notice requirement. The Commonwealth Court analyzed the above arguments and determined that the claimant timely reported her injury. In doing so, the Commonwealth Court found that Section 1908 applies to a statute that “contains a time period within its terms,” unless the statute specifically excludes the application of Section 1908. The Commonwealth Court explained that, when calculating the 120-day time period, the date of injury is excluded from the calculation, and so is the last day, provided it lands on a weekend or a holiday recognized by the Commonwealth or the United States. These days, the claimant has up to 123 days to report an injury if the 120th day falls on a Saturday and a legally recognized holiday is on a Monday. Make sure you review your calendars closely the next time you think you have a notice defense and can issue a notice of workers’ compensation denial based upon the same. Also, after the claim is reported, make sure you gather as much information as possible during your investigation since this decision doesn’t change the fact that late reporting, even if timely under the Act, is often the first of many red flags related to the claim. *Ryan is a shareholder in our Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office. He can be reached at 412.803.1173 or rahauck@mdwcg.com. Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021 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. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Events

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies.