Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Is Happy to Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories*

March 1, 2017

Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017

Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) convinced the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to affirm the underlying decision denying the claim petition in a workers’ compensation appeal where the claimant argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge capriciously disregarded the evidence. The judge credited the employer’s medical expert that the claimant did not sustain a work injury when the forklift she was driving was involved in a minor collision. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed, rejecting the “capricious disregard” argument. The court found that the judge’s decision showed he thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and explained why he did not credit the claimant, whose subjective history and complaints the judge found not credible, or her medical witness, whose opinions were based thereon. Benjamin v. WCAB (Omnova Solutions, Inc.), 2016 Pa.Commw. Unpub. LEXIS (Pa. Cmwlth. October 6, 2016).

Thomas Specht and Maureen Kelly (Scranton, PA) obtained affirmance of a decision issued by the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas in a slip and fall case. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania determined that where the appellant cannot show that the appellee supermarket had actual notice of a dangerous condition (the appellant had fallen on a freshly waxed floor) and cannot produce any evidence that an application of wax had created a dangerous condition so obvious as to amount to evidence from which an inference of negligence would arise, the record did not support that the supermarket had deviated from its duty of reasonable care. Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the supermarket. Zangenberg v. Weis Markets, Inc., et. al., 2015 Pa.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 4208 (Pa.Super. Nov. 17, 2016).

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome¤


Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017. Defense Digest 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. © 2017 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

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."