.

Workers' Compensation Defense

The Workers' Compensation Practice Group is devoted to the exclusive representation of employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. While many of the attorneys in this group have a background in civil litigation, they all focus their practice solely on the defense of workers' compensation matters. Our attorneys are well versed in the intricacies of this nuanced practice, and due to their constant presence in the courts where they practice, they are well respected by the judges before whom they regularly appear and the attorneys against whom they compete.

Our attorneys are involved in all aspects of workers' compensation, from the infancy of a claim through practice in the appellate courts. We are vigorous litigators who also recognize that litigation is not always the primary focus of an employer's successful workers' compensation program. Significant monetary savings can be achieved through the effective management of workers' compensation plans and innovative return-to-work programs, and our attorneys are on the cutting edge of case law developments to assist in the design, implementation and continuation of such programs. We also provide risk management services and can help reduce costs by becoming involved during the pre-litigation phase. In addition, the work of the attorneys in the firm's highly regarded Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group includes front-line responsibility for conducting necessary legal research, writing required briefs, and preparing and presenting oral arguments in post-trial motions and appeals.

As workers' compensation has become increasingly sophisticated, we have expanded our scope of practice to support clients in areas that have become tangential to the workers' compensation practice.

Workers' Compensation Fraud
Fraud contributes significantly to the cost of doing business and negatively impacts employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. We can facilitate the filing of a fraud claim through local government agencies and review all cases for civil remedies to help our clients recoup some of the monies expended due to fraudulent cases.

Unemployment Compensation
It has become increasingly apparent that there is a cross-over between workers’ compensation and unemployment cases. While the two areas of law are mutually exclusive by way of collateral estoppel, it is clear the same issues are simultaneously being litigated in both forums. By using the unemployment and workers’ compensation forums to bolster defenses in both claims, we achieve successful results for our clients. Our unemployment practice is full service, with our attorneys handling claims at all levels of the courts.

Federal Black Lung
Our attorneys defend claims brought before the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) by coal miners and widows seeking benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We are intimately familiar with the lengthy litigation process involved with Federal Black Lung claims originating at the USDOL and proceeding to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Our attorneys have also handled numerous appeals to the Benefits Review Board and the United States Court of Appeals. We are also well versed in defending pulmonary disease cases under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act that often go hand-in-hand with claims brought under the Black Lung Benefits Act.

Hearing Loss Claims
Injuries resulting from exposure to hazardous occupational noise comprise one of the largest group of specific loss/permanency claims in the tri-state area. In addition to becoming more commonplace, these claims have also become more technologically complex. Each attorney assigned to hearing loss claims are familiar with the science behind acoustical trauma, including the inner workings of audiometric testing, leading to effective cross examination of key witnesses. Further, our attorneys seek to expose pre-existing, non-work related hearing loss and differentiate it from compensable loss. We are one of the leading defense firms in protecting successor-in-interest employers that are unexpectedly plagued with hearing loss claims stemming from employees’ hazardous noise exposure with previous employers. In Pennsylvania, we were pioneers in the effort to change the standard of monetary award in hearing loss cases from an all-encompassing specific loss award to that of a percentage award based on actual work-related hearing loss. Our attorneys are also well versed in the practical implications of a working hearing conservation program and the benefits such a program can have on an employer’s bottom line.

Medicare Compliance
Our Medicare team has the comprehensive knowledge necessary to effectively handle set-asides in all parts of the country. We are well-versed in federal and state liability systems, as well as the workers’ compensation systems. In addition to protecting Medicare’s interests through set-asides, we also alert our clients to the involvement of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reporting Law. We offer cogent advice regarding case settlements, including the use of structured settlements and other strategies to bring cases to conclusion. We are willing and able to work with lawyers throughout the country to provide the support they need regarding Medicare issues.

Coverage
Occasionally, carriers are drawn into workers' compensation litigation notwithstanding a dispute between the employer and the carrier as to viable workers' compensation coverage. Our attorneys have experience in navigating the potential pitfalls that can arise during litigation due to the conflicting interests of the employer and the carrier, and have successfully obtained dismissals of carriers as parties from these unwarranted claims.

Interplay Between the ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
Our attorneys have expansive knowledge of the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation statutes that all impact termination of employment. We fully understand the complex relationship between these statutes and provide our clients the necessary guidance during the pre-litigation phase. We also advise our clients on the potential impact of a wrongful termination and provide detailed recommendations to facilitate a lawful employment termination. Our legal approach focuses on mitigating future exposure by providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls when navigating the decision to terminate an employee. We work with our clients to evaluate and address all legal issues involving the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation as it pertains to avoiding a wrongful termination claim.

Medical Marijuana
There has been a wave of medical marijuana legalization throughout the country in recent years. It is now legal in more than 38 states, including ones where we defend clients in workers’ compensation matters. Our attorneys are knowledgeable about the medical marijuana laws in these specific states and can provide sound advice on the many issues that arise in the workers’ compensation context. Some of these issues include insurance coverage, payment, reasonableness and necessity of medical cannabis treatment for work injuries, work injuries that qualify as conditions treatable with medical cannabis, and workplace safety concerns. We are also committed to tracking important trends in medical marijuana law nationally to keep our clients well informed of significant developments and the impact they may have on the practice of workers’ compensation.

Defense Base Act
The Defense Base Act (DBA) extends protections to civilian employees working outside the United States on U.S. military bases or under contracts with the U.S. government involving public works or national defense. It provides comprehensive medical, disability, and death benefits to covered employees who suffer injuries or fatalities arising out of and in the course of employment. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the complex regulations and procedures governing DBA claims. We deliver strategic, results-driven representation at every stage of the process—from claim investigation and mediation through formal hearings and appeals before the Benefits Review Board, U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Our goal is to protect our clients’ interests while minimizing the risks and financial exposure associated with Defense Base Act claims.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
We understand the legal, operational, and financial challenges employers, insurers, and maritime companies face when responding to Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claims. Our attorneys bring extensive experience litigating before the U.S. Department of Labor, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Benefits Review Board, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Working closely with clients, investigators, and medical and vocational experts, we develop disciplined, evidence-driven defenses tailored to the facts of each case. We provide proactive, results-focused representation at every stage of the process—from initial claim evaluation through trial and appeal.

PENNSYLVANIA

Fee Reviews
Fee reviews have become an increasingly important component of workers' compensation cases in Pennsylvania. Our attorneys are very familiar with the legal issues associated with the fee review process and its interplay with active workers’ compensation litigation. By becoming involved at the onset of a fee review filing, we are better positioned to defend the interests of employers/carriers. Medical providers use fee reviews to challenge the timeliness or amount of medical payments made by employers/carriers. Providers are given two opportunities to file a timely application for fee review – (1) within 90 days of their original billing date, or (2) within 30 days after they are provided with notice of a dispute, whichever is later. The fee review process presupposes that liability has been established, and thus, provider's allegations are accepted at face value during the initial stages. As an unfortunate consequence, employers/carriers may face unjust initial Determinations. Disputing a fee review Determination requires a de novo appeal, which must be filed within 30 days of the date of the Determination. Our attorneys have extensive experience navigating the issues that then arise during fee review hearings and provide excellent guidance based on our thorough understanding of CPT codes and types of treatment. Our goal is to handle each case in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Heart and Lung Benefits
In addition to handling traditional workers’ compensation claims, our attorneys also advise local municipalities and counties in Pennsylvania on heart and lung claims. The Heart and Lung Act provides full wage loss benefits to certain eligible municipal, county and state workers who are injured in the performance of their job duties. With a depth of experience in this area, we are well versed in the associated law and adept at defending clients facing these types of claims. Our attorneys understand the complex interplay between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, and will provide the necessary guidance in pre-litigation settings, address all issues to challenge entitlement to Heart and Lung benefits, and explain its impact on a workers’ compensation claim. Our approach focuses on mitigating future exposure and providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls in handling Heart and Lung Act claims. We work with our clients to evaluate and achieve reasonable resolution of both the heart and lung and worker’s compensation claims, as well as address any subrogation issues.

FLORIDA

Stop Work Orders
Stop Work Orders or Requests for Business Records are issued by the Division of Workers’ Compensation Investigators for the state of Florida. A business cannot legally operate while a Stop Work Order is in place. Failure to comply with a Stop Work Order can result in increased penalty assessments and, in some cases, criminal sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute 440.105. Our attorneys can assist business owners in navigating this difficult and complicated process, including record requests, reducing penalty assessments and filing petitions before Department of Administrative Hearings.

Insurance Premium Audits and Disputes
Disputes occasionally arise between employers and carriers after an audit takes place. Workers’ compensation rates in Florida are based upon job title and payroll, and discrepancies discovered following an audit can lead to loss of coverage, fines and assessments. We can assist employers throughout this dispute process, which can lead to improved outcomes and reduced assessments.

Results

Events

Thought Leadership

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What's Hot in Workers' Comp - 2024 to present

December 31, 2026

Our monthly workers’ compensation publication provides legal updates and practical analysis of developments affecting employers, insurers, and claims professionals. Each issue highlights recent case law and statutory and regulatory changes to help readers stay informed, manage risk, and respond effectively to evolving workers’ compensation requirements. What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, April 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, March 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, February 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, January 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, December 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, November 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, October 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, September 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, August 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, July 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, December 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, November 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, October 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, September 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, August 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, July 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, June 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, May 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2024

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

June 19, 2026

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

Thought Leadership

Coverage Determined, Judgment Paid, Bad Faith Survives: Fourth DCA’s Opinion Highlights the Distinction Between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Damages

In Healthy Food Experts, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 4D2025-0181 (4th DCA June 10, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that an insurer’s payment of a judgment in a breach of contract case does not automatically eliminate a later bad faith claim seeking extra-contractual damages. The decision provides guidance on when a first-party bad faith claim may still proceed after a coverage dispute has already been resolved by a judgment. Healthy Food Experts, LLC involved a dispute related to a property damage claim submitted under a commercial insurance policy issued by the insurer following a ceiling collapse at the insured’s restaurant. The insurer denied coverage for the insured’s losses for business personal property and business income, but extended coverage for the food spoilage losses. As a result, the insured filed a breach of contract action and ultimately obtained a jury verdict. The insurer appealed the verdict and, while the appeal was pending, the insured filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) seeking payment for the judgment plus interest. The insurer failed to cure the CRN within the statutory sixty-day cure period, but paid the judgement in full with accrued interest following the appeals court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, the insured filed a first party bad faith lawsuit claiming to have suffered extra-contractual damages. In response to the bad faith suit, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, relying on Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) stating that damages were fixed by judgment of the breach of contract suit and the insured could not recover additional damages beyond those already awarded. The insurer also argued that the judgment did not exceed the insured’s policy limits, which was a required element of a first party bad faith claim. The trial court dismissed the bad faith action based on Fridman, concluding the insured could not seek any additional damages.  The insured appealed the court’s ruling to the Fourth DCA arguing the trial court’s order conflicts with Florida law and misapplies Fridman, as a contractual damage determination in the underlying suit establishes the “condition precedent to prosecute a first party bad faith action.” Cingari v. First Protective Ins. Co., 377 So. 3d 1169, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Further, the insured argued that the only purpose to the binding language in Fridman is to prevent the re-litigating of the same damages, which in this case are the contractual damages. The insured asserted the damages were not the “same” as they were seeking consequential damages from the insurer’s alleged bad faith. The Fourth District emphasized in its ruling that a first party bad faith claim is not ripe for litigation until there has been the following: a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; a determination of the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice is filed pursuant to §624.155(3)(a).  Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) The court concluded that the necessary conditions were satisfied as the jury verdict determined both coverage and the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the insured properly filed a civil remedy notice, so the bad faith claim was ripe for litigation. The Fourth DCA further explained the insured could not seek contractual damages in its bad faith action, which was previously litigated in its breach of contract suit. However, the court determined the insured could seek “extra-contractual damages,” which were not recoverable in the insured’s breach of contract suit, which may include interest, court cost, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the insured. Further, the court held excess judgment is not essential in a first party bad faith claim and the insurer’s late payment of the judgment did not preclude the insured’s bad faith action. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s final dismissal order of the bad faith action. This opinion highlights the distinction between contractual and extra-contractual damages. Moreover, this case demonstrates that a judgment does not necessarily end the dispute in a first party property claim as it is could also serve as a prerequisite of a bad faith action. The decision serves as a reminder that insurers may face bad faith exposure notwithstanding the payment of a judgment in an underlying breach of contract action.

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.