.

With more than 25 years of legal experience, Judd has secured successful results for clients in Northampton, Lehigh, Berks, Schuylkill, Monroe and Carbon counties including school districts, intermediate units, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, large retailers, manufacturers, construction companies, and various other employers. He has also defended coal mine operations throughout the eastern part of Pennsylvania in Federal Black Lung claims. A native of Allentown, Judd has spent his legal career defending clients in the Lehigh Valley region against workers' compensation claims.

Judd has significant experience litigating cases before Workers’ Compensation Judges throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. He has successfully defeated numerous claim petitions by presenting medical and factual evidence showing that the claimants did not sustain work-related injuries and/or corresponding disabilities. Judd utilizes innovative legal strategies and develops unique solutions to help clients achieve their litigation goals. He places a high value on communication and works closely with each client from case inception to completion.

Judd is also skilled in counseling clients on effective management of workers' compensation plans and development and implementation of innovative return-to-work programs. He also provides risk management services, which can help reduce litigation costs.

In 2026, Judd was inducted into the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers, joining a select group of attorneys from across the country who have distinguished themselves in the practice of workers' compensation law.

Judd is a graduate of Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. He received his juris doctor in from Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware, graduating cum laude. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1995)
    • Ursinus College (B.A., 1992)
    • Pennsylvania, 1995
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers (2025-2026)
    • Top Lawyers of the Lehigh Valley, Workers' Compensation (2025)
    • Bar Association of Lehigh County, Workers' Compensation Committee
    • Claims & Litigation Management Alliance
    • College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • We See You: How Employee Engagement Enhances Work Comp Outcomes, CLM Work Comp Conference, Nashville, TN, May 20, 2026
    • A State-By-State Guide to Avoiding Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later?, Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May 2021
    • IREs and WC Case Law Update, client webinar, May 19, 2021
    • Are You Coming or Going – Do You Know Your Course and Scope?, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 26, 2020
    • Mitigating the Risk of Workplace Bullying, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • Return to Work: Perfecting Job Offers and the Revival of the Labor Market Survey, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 18 and 25, 2018
    • Ingredients for Successfully Defending Claims for Work Injuries at Home, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • Course and Scope, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminars, October 19 and 27, 2016
    • Cover Your Bases: A WCAIS Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • The Basics of WCAIS, client seminar, Parsippany, New Jersey, November 21, 2014
    • Social Media Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, November 6, 2014
    • Workers' Compensation: What's the Best Case, The Seltzer Group Workers' Compensation Seminar, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, December 6, 2012
    • How To Control Your Claim, The Seltzer Group Workers' Compensation Seminar, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, December 7, 2011
    • Workers' Compensation Hearings: Techniques & Strategies for Success, National Business Institute, Allentown, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2008 
    • Advanced Workers' Compensation in Pennsylvania, National Business Institute, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 2003, 2004 (speaker and course planner) 
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Law Seminar, Top 20 Cases of 2001 & 2002, Professional Education Systems Institute, Pittsburgh, 2002 
    • Workers' Compensation Update Lecture, Institute of Management Accountants, Lehigh Valley Chapter, Holiday Inn Bethlehem, 1998 
    • "Goodbye 'Yellow Freight' Road?," The Legal Intelligencer, November 15, 2024
    • “Protz – One Year Later,” Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018
    • "It "Payes" to Be Abnormal - Is The Law Really Changing for Mental/Mental Claims in PA Workers’ Comp?," Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014
    • "That 70's Show: Obamacare Takes Federal Black Lung Claims Back in Time," Carrier Management, December 2013 and Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014
    • Successfully defended against a Petition for Joinder of Additional Defendant that sought to place liability on our client as a statutory employer under the Act.  The judge found that the original defendants had failed to join the proper party, had failed to prove that our client was a statutory employer, and had failed to prove facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Our client was dismissed from the claim.
    • Defeated a claim where the claimant was alleging that his degenerative disc disease in his cervical and lumbar spine was caused by his years of employment as a lineman for a cable services company. 
    • Prevailed in several cases for a meat packing company by proving that the claimants' alleged repetitive stress injuries to the upper extremities (shoulder injuries, carpal tunnel, etc.) were not caused by their employment. 
    • Successfully defended numerous federal black lung claims filed by miners, even when the miner was able to prove an extensive coal mine employment history and significant exposure to coal dust, and widows' claims when the miners had been awarded lifetime benefits, but the widows were unable to prove that coal workers' pneumoconiosis caused or significantly contributed to the miners' death.
    • Successfully defended a claim in which claimant was seriously injured in an automobile accident on her way to work by convincing the judge and Appeal Board that the facts of the case did not meet the criteria for exclusion from the coming and going rule. 
    • Successfully defended multiple claims where claimant was working under restrictions but was fired by the employer. Successfully argued to several Workers' Compensation Judges that the claimant was fired for cause and for reasons unrelated to the work injury and that benefits should not be awarded or reinstated.

Results

Successfully Represented an Insurance Company in a Workers’ Compensation Appellate Matter

We successfully represented an insurance company before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court agreed with our argument that the claimant needed to provide notice of his work-related injury to the defendant insurance company within 120 days of the occurrence of the injury due to his combined status as sole proprietor/owner and also the employee in this matter. The judges distinguished the facts of the case due to the fact that the claimant was a sole proprietor, owner and the only employee of his own business. The court agreed that allowing the claimant to pursue a claim, by claiming that he provided notice to himself immediately when the accident occurred, but did not bother to report the injury to the insurance company for over a year thereafter, would result in an absurdity and put the insurance company at a disadvantage in the investigation of the claim. The court also noted that the definition of “employer” in certain portions of the Act includes not only the actual employer as a business itself, but also the employer’s duly authorized agent or its insurer, if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability. Since the claimant failed to provide notice to the insurance company within 120 days of his injury, the court held that the Claim Petition was barred. The Claim Petition was dismissed, and the claimant was not entitled to any benefits at all.

Establishing Failure to Well-Plead Secures a Win for the Defense

In our successful appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the workers’ compensation judge had awarded a closed period of benefits and then terminated all benefits, despite the employer’s late answer. The judge found that the description of injury was not well-pled and, therefore, not deemed admitted. The Appeal Board reversed the judge on the full termination of benefits, saying that, since our IME physician did not acknowledge a work-related psychiatric injury, his testimony was in conflict with the admitted injury due to the late answer. They reversed the judge and ordered reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits. The Commonwealth Court found in our favor and reversed. The court held that the judge was correct that the injury was not well-pled and that we were not deemed to have admitted a psychiatric injury. Therefore, they reinstated the judge’s decision which terminated benefits.

Thought Leadership

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation Payment Authorization Form

January 14, 2025

On October 29, 2024, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed into law Senate Bill 1232, which amended the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act to require that employers and insurers offer claimants the option to receive their workers’ compensation wage loss payments by direct deposit. The Direct Deposit law took effect December 28, 2024. Pursuant to the law, direct deposit must be offered to all claimants as an option for payment of indemnity benefits on or before December 28, 2025.  Employers and carriers can start offering direct deposit immediately. The Bureau recently issued a form (LIBC-215) that employers and carriers can send to claimants to authorize direct deposit. A copy of the form can be found at this link:  Payment Authorization Form LIBC-215  Please note that claimants are not required to use direct deposit, but the law requires that it be offered as an option. Please contact any of our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation attorneys if you have any questions regarding this new requirement.    What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert – January 14, 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Goodbye ‘Yellow Freight’ Road?

November 15, 2024

Pursuant to Yellow Freight System v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Madara), 423 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), an employer’s answer to a claim petition that is filed more than 20 days after the assignment of the claim petition to a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) is deemed to be a “late answer” and the employer is deemed to have admitted all well pleaded facts alleged in the claim petition. While not a complete default judgment, the granting of a Yellow Freight motion by a WCJ will often mean that a claim is found compensable and benefits are payable with the burden of proof shifting to the employer to prove that benefits should be modified, suspended or terminated.

Events

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

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.