Publications
Delaware Supreme Court affirms Superior Court’s decision regarding an IAB appeal holding that an employer may challenge medical treatment via petition for review if causation is in dispute.
The claimant was injured in a work accident on April 4, 2011.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide informa
First District Court of Appeals finds compensability and no application of the “special hazard” exception or estoppel.
The claimant suffered an incomplete tetraplegia that resulted from a single-vehicle accident while riding home from work with
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp
Appellate Division affirms the grant of summary judgment for defendant and denial of plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
An employee of one of New Town’s contractors was injured while working on one of the plaintiffs’ properties.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp
Appellate Division concludes judge relied on delays in litigation, prior to the entry of the order, to award maximum penalty.
The petitioner was injured in a workplace incident on February 11, 2013.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp
The Commonwealth Court finding that combined dosages of OxyContin and Oxycodone were excessive and not reasonable and necessary was supported by substantial competent evidence as it was based on competent and credible opinion of reviewing provider.
Following the claimant’s work injury, the employer filed a Request for Utilization Review (UR) regarding pain management treatment the claima
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide informa
Doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar review petition to add left ulnar nerve injury because a judge in prior decision rejected medical expert’s opinion that claimant’s symptoms were caused by injury to left ulnar nerve.
A Workers’ Compensation Judge issued a decision granting a claim petition and recognizing work-related injuries in the nature of left wrist a
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our read
Act 111 is not unconstitutional under due process or due course of law grounds, nor does it violate reasonable compensation aspect of Article III, Section 18 of Pennsylvania Constitution.
The claimant had sustained a work injury in 2008.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide informa
Judge did not err in dismissing reinstatement petition by finding that claimant was terminated for bad faith conduct after returning to work from work injury.
Following work injuries of May 30, 2017, the claimant returned to work on June 13, 2017, in a modified-duty capacity.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide informa
Pro se claimant’s appeal of judge’s decision was filed untimely in that it was filed with judge’s office in Philadelphia and not Appeal Board’s office in Harrisburg.
In this case, a Workers’ Compensation Judge granted a claim petition for a closed period and a termination petition.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp
What's Hot in Workers' Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp