RESULTS*
Eric Scott Thompson (Wilmington) was successful in a workers’ compensation matter in Delaware. On October 15, 2024, the claimant was injured while performing fire training in a multistory building when he tripped over a fire line, injuring his right knee. The claimant received regular and consistent treatment for the right knee through August 29, 2025, when he presented with left knee complaints for the first time. His treating orthopedist diagnosed a hamstring strain. The claimant was next seen October 15, 2025, with continued left knee complaints, and was referred to a total knee doctor within the practice. He was then diagnosed with a posterior root tear of the medial meniscus. Our expert testified that it was not plausible for a lateral hamstring strain to progress to a meniscal tear in two months. The claimant required a total knee replacement that was ultimately performed in February 2026. In the six months between the time of initial presentation with left knee complaints and the total knee replacement, conservative care consisted of a single injection. Our expert testified that posterior root media meniscal tears can respond to conservative care, and it was not known if it would with the claimant because it was not adequately explored. The Industrial Accident Board agreed with our expert and determined that the claimant failed to meet the burden of establishing more likely than not that the left knee complaints were caused by overloading/overuse as a result of the compensable injury to the right knee. They also agreed that the claimant was able to return to work in a sedentary capacity as opined by his physicians and our expert prior to the left total knee replacement and that there were employment opportunities available within his restrictions and capabilities as presented by the vocational expert. As a result, the claimant is no longer entitled to total disability benefits and will receive partial disability benefits for which he is limited to 300 weeks.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) had a termination petition granted in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case. The petition involved an echocardiography technologist with long-term employment at a local hospital who sustained a right shoulder injury resulting in surgery in January 2024. Following surgery, the claimant was diagnosed with a frozen shoulder and underwent additional surgery in June 2024, with a recommendation for a third surgery. The opinions of the defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, were found credible, persuasive, and competent based upon the extensive history he obtained from the claimant, analysis of the mechanism of injury, and review of records, along with comparison of MRIs from October 2023, February 11, 2024, and January 6, 2025, which failed to reveal any causal relationship other than a strain/sprain of the right shoulder. This evidence supported that the claimant had fully recovered, and was not in need of any ongoing medical treatment and/or restrictions. In particular, despite allegations of injuries beyond a sprain/strain, the defense medical expert identified that those allegations were not consistent with what was found at the time of surgery, and elements of the surgery were to treat a chronic and degenerative condition. Additionally there were no ongoing issues or problems with the subscapularis, which was intact, consistent with the follow-up MRI of February 11, 2024, and the claimant did not have evidence of a frozen shoulder. In fact, the MRIs and mechanism of injury, he opined, did not support any injury causing tendonitis or inflammatory conditions within the bicep tendon. Furthermore, multiple days of surveillance footage demonstrated the claimant’s normal use, with the ability to sweep and shovel snow, operate her vehicle, raise her arms above shoulder level, and use a broom – all without any observable difficulty, which challenged the claimant’s credibility of a disability and further established a lack of causation. As a result of this favorable decision, supersedeas fund reimbursement will be obtained for both wage loss and medical benefits through the supersedeas fund recovery process.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) had a termination petition granted involving a claimant who sustained a lower back injury. He was treated by a physician who immediately referred him for a $6,500 per month steady diet of TENS unit and supplies. The employer filed a termination petition based on a full recovery opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. The claimant continued to treat during the litigation with the electronic supplies. Expert testimony demonstrated that the claimant had no reproducible lower back problems and had fully recovered from the work injury. The court granted a complete defense verdict.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a termination petition granted by the Berks County Workers’ Compensation Court. The claimant suffered multiple upper extremity injuries which relegated him to light duty paper work. Several years later, the employer was able to retrieve a full recovery opinion on the hand/wrist and shoulder injuries. The claimant presented testimony that he could not even raise a glass of water without pain. Medical expert testimony was presented by the employer, which shrouded the claimant’s allegations of disability in serious doubt. The claimant’s hands and arm had no muscular atrophy and were covered in dirt and callouses, demonstrating that he was working and using his hands. The court granted a full defense verdict.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) achieved a defense verdict in a Medicare conditional lien suit. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) filed a conditional lien payment request to the PIP insurer. The government contractors for CMS denied the insurer’s first- and second-level appeal and awarded the lien with interest. The matter was referred for handling of the third-level appeal, which moved from a government contractor to the court. At the hearing, it was proffered that the government violated the relevant statute of limitations on the prosecution of the conditional lien. The government alleged a six-year limitations period pursuant to the Secondary Payer Act. In response, it was demonstrated that a three-year limitations period controlled under the correct section of the statute and the government was misapprehending the correct limitations period. The court agreed and dismissed the lien for a complete defense verdict.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a workers’ compensation termination petition granted in a matter in which the claimant had an adjudicated right elbow injury. The claimant expert attempted to allege a different elbow injury than what had previously been adjudicated in order to defeat the termination petition. Res Judicata objections were sustained since the same expert tried to amend the nature of injury in previous litigation and was unsuccessful. The court granted a complete defense verdict.
Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended an Appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which challenged the Judge’s complete denial of the Claimant’s Claim Petition. The judge wholly credited the Employer’s surveillance footage and Employer witness testimony which directly contradicted the Claimant’s testimony. Through brief and oral argument, Alana argued that Claimant’s appeal attempted to impermissibly challenge the judge’s authority as the sole arbiter of credibility and emphasized that the judge was free to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence of record.
Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended against a claimant’s appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which challenged the WCJ’s complete denial of the claimant’s claim petition. In the underlying litigation, the WCJ wholly credited the employer’s surveillance footage and the employer witness testimony, which directly contradicted the claimant’s testimony. Finding that the claimant’s testimony and version of events lacked credibility, the WCJ opined that the claimant had failed to satisfy his burden of proof to establish a work-related injury and entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant filed an appeal arguing that the WCJ’s findings were not supported by substantial, competent evidence, that the WCJ failed to issue a reasoned decision, and that he erred in denying the claim petition. The claimant argued that the WCJ drew impermissible inferences from the evidence offered by the defense. Through a brief and oral argument before the WCAB, we argued that the claimant’s appeal attempted to impermissibly challenge the WCJ’s authority as the sole arbiter of credibility and emphasized that the WCJ was free to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence of record. The WCAB accepted our arguments and wholly rejected the claimant’s appeal. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ’s decision and order in its entirety, affirming our successful defense against the claimant’s claim petition, solidifying a complete defense victory.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
