Publications
Superior Court affirms decision denying claimant’s motion to strike medical expert testimony regarding medical records produced for the first time after claimant’s medical expert’s deposition.
Ms. Trincia filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due that alleged she injured her cervical spine and left shoulder in a work accident on September 23, 2020. The claimant’s primary care physician, Dr.
The 120-day rule does not apply if the employer/carrier only accepted compensability and provided treatment for a temporary exacerbation.
The claimant requested compensability, evaluation and treatment for the right knee, temporary total disability/temporary partial disability (TTD/TPD) and penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees (PICA) related to an October 19, 2021, work-r
Appellate Division affirmed workers’ compensation orders denying medical treatment and finding lack of causation.
The Appellate Division affirmed the workers’ compensation order denying the petitioner’s motion for medical and temporary benefits and two other orders denying her motions to suppress defenses and compel discovery.
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.
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.
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.
What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA):
Delaware Supreme Court affirms IAB decision and rejects employer’s arguments that Superior Court Civil Rule 41(a)(1) and the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred claimant from filing a petition for a recurrence of total disability benefits.
The claimant was injured in a work accident on October 28, 2018. On December 9, 2019, he filed a Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due that sought total disability benefits (TTD) and two surgeries, including a spine surgery.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Claimant attorney’s appeal of judge of compensation claims’ order denying a statutory fee on settlement overturned by First District Court of Appeal and held to be reasonable.
This case involves a complex 1993 date of accident and a claimant who is a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. Prior to being represented by Michael Rudolph, the claimant had five other attorneys.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Appellate Division affirmed workers’ compensation order finding an increase in permanency, but not total disability.
In this case, the Appellate Division affirmed the workers’ compensation order for an increase in the petitioner’s permanency award but denied his claim that he was permanently and totally disabled.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.