Successfully proved that a claimant was not an employee/special employee of our client, the employer.
We successfully defended a claim where a large cable provider (owner) hired a contractor to complete work at an out-of-state location, and various parts of the job were subcontracted to several different companies, one of which did not have New York workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The contested issues were whether the Board has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, what company employed the claimant, and whether the claimant was a covered employee.
Christopher S. Devlin Joins Marshall Dennehey as Director of Professional Development and Training
Marshall Dennehey announced today that Christopher S. Devlin, Esq. has joined the firm as Director of Professional Development and Training.
Christopher S. Devlin
Christopher
S.
Devlin
Position/status
Administrative Director
Law office
Marshall Dennehey Named to BTI Consulting’s Client Service A-Team 2024
Marshall Dennehey was recognized as a leader in client service in BTI Consulting’s Client Service A-Team 2024 report, ranking in the top 20% of all law firms as evaluated by corporate counsel.
What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA):
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board violates long-standing workers’ compensation principles by overturning credibility findings made by a worker’s compensation judge.
The claimant suffered a work injury to her right thumb in the nature of a strain/sprain.
Act 111 is not an unconstitutional special law regulating labor, and an IRE physician’s evaluation is competent to support a modification of benefits despite not considering the most recent medical records and diagnostic studies.
The claimant underwent an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) on September 20, 2011, following a July 5, 2005, work injury.
Appellate Division finds no reason to disturb employer’s experts’ qualifications, to not accept their testimony, and rejects claim that experts only offered net opinions. Appellate Division found that experts provided the reasons for their conclusions.
The pro se petitioner appealed from a workers’ compensation order finding that his injuries were not causally related to his employment. The petitioner filed two claims, both seeking medical and temporary benefits from the respondent.