.

Casey is a member of the Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group, where he focuses his practice on appellate advocacy, post-trial motions, and appeals. A highly accomplished appellate attorney, Casey has extensive experience before Pennsylvania’s highest court. Over the course of his career, he has represented parties and amici curiae in more than 15 appeals before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and has successfully secured discretionary review, widely known as “allocatur,” on six occasions. He has also presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court.  Casey is a frequent commentator on appellate matters, contributing insights to The Legal Intelligencer and Law360 on cases pending before Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

In addition to his robust appellate practice, Casey maintains an active commercial litigation practice and brings significant first-chair trial experience. He regularly represents businesses in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. His experience spans a wide array of matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, constitutional challenges, emergency injunctive relief, environmental disputes, restrictive covenant litigation, shareholder disputes, and trade secrets claims. He also represents clients in matters within the original jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Casey serves as Chair of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, where he assists the Court in the development and administration of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. He is also a Board Member of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society; Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee; a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee; and a member of the James S. Bowman American Inn of Court.

He is a past President of the Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and currently serves as Co-Chair of the Chapter’s CLE Committee. He has also contributed to the federal bench and bar through his service on the Planning Committee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s 2024 Bench/Bar Conference and as a former member of the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee.

Casey has earned widespread recognition for his exceptional legal acumen and leadership, including selection to the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for Appellate Practice and Administrative/Regulatory Law. He was also honored as one of The Legal Intelligencer’s “2024 Lawyers on the Fast Track (Small/Midsize)”, a highly selective distinction recognizing just 13 attorneys statewide under age 40. In 2023, Casey was named a Fellow of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, an elite honor awarded to fewer than 300 attorneys nationwide. Earlier in his career, he was consistently recognized on the Pennsylvania Rising Stars list (Thomson Reuters) for Business Litigation for ten consecutive years (2015-2024), reflecting his sustained excellence and growing influence in the field.

Prior to entering private practice, Casey served as a law clerk for then-Justice, now Chief Justice Emeritus, Thomas G. Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for two and a half years. Casey received his juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law. He received his Bachelor of Arts with distinction, in Journalism from The Pennsylvania State University. While at Penn State, Casey was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and spent a semester in Washington, D.C., interning for CNN’s Capital Gang.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2009)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 2006)
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • New Jersey, 2010
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Appellate Practice and Administrative/Regulatory Law, (2026)
    • The Legal Intelligencer's Lawyers on the Fast Track, Small/Midsize Winner for Pennsylvania (2024)
    • Pennsylvania Rising Star (2015-2024)
    • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Chair
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society, Board Member
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee, Co-Chair
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee, Member
    • James S. Bowman American Inn of Court, Member
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Co-Chair CLE Committee
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Past President
    • Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee, Past Member
    • Representing a group of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of e-cigarettes in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to Act 57 of 2025.  MMA Group 1 Inc. d/b/a Tobacco Hut State College, et al. v. David W. Sunday, Jr., No. 3:26-CV-01385 (M.D. Pa.) (pending). Case featured in Law360 and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
    • Represented Harrisburg City Council in a lawsuit filed by Mayor Wanda R.D. Williams concerning Council’s decision to not fund four positions as part of the City’s 2026 budget.  As part of the lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary and permanent injunction sought by the Mayor and successfully obtained dismissal of the lawsuit.  Williams v. Harrisburg City Council, No. 2026-CV-00140 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  Case featured in PennLive, TheBurg, Fox43, ABC27, and other media outlets.
    • Represented a group of casinos at trial before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction and on an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case concerning the legality of the Pennsylvania Lottery’s iLottery program.  Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Department of Revenue, 306 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2023).
    • Represented a Fortune 500 company in CERCLA and RCRA litigation in Wisconsin federal court in which the plaintiff sought nearly $30 million in past and future response costs and declaratory relief.  After a two-week bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff $0 in past response costs, reduced the plaintiff’s requested allocation of future response costs to the company by more than 40%, and dismissed the plaintiff’s RCRA claim.  Barclay Lofts LLC, et al. v. PPG Industries, et al., 2:20-CV-01694 (D. Wis.).
    • Represented Chester County in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning a challenge to the City of Chester’s attempt to acquire the assets of the Chester Water Authority. In re Chester Water Authority, 349 A.3d 892 (Pa. 2026).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer against another publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer in a tortious interference case in Arizona federal court involving more than $25 million in damages.  Lion Electric Company v. Nikola Corporation, 2:23-CV-00372 (D. Ariz.).
    • Represented a company in a lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction involving DOH’s attempt to restrict attendance at the Carlisle Car Show pursuant to various orders issued by then-Governor Wolf and then-Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic.  As part of that lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by DOH.  Department of Health v. Carlisle Productions, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Events, No. 350 MD 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.).
    • Represented the Scranton Diocese as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse claims.  Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, 255 A.3d 237 (Pa. 2021).  As part of the appeal, provided substantial assistance to the appellants, including assisting them with successfully petitioning the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.  Also quoted in the AP article, “Slew of church abuse lawsuits hinges on state court decision” (Aug. 14, 2020).
    • Represented a franchisee against a nationwide franchisor in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania federal court.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the franchisor.  Koala Insulation Franchisor, LLC v. Lotus & The Rooster Holdings Company, et al., No. 1:25-CV-01008 (M.D. Pa.).
    • Representing a former C-suite executive in a civil conspiracy case before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction brought by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner in his capacity as Statutory Rehabilitator of Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP); the Commissioner is seeking over $500 million in damages.  Humphreys v. Wegner, et al., No. 1 SHP 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (pending).
    • Represented a nationwide flooring company in a non-competition/non-solicitation/theft of information case against a competitor and three former employees pending in Pennsylvania state court.  Floormax Direct LLC t/b/d/a FloorMax USA v. Rahman, et al., No. 2025-CV-02469 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  As part of the representation, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against one of the individual defendants.
    • Representing the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, UPMC, Uber Technologies, Inc., and 15 other organizations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court concerning the scope of the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102.  Holland v. WM Operating, LLC, et al., Nos. 4 EDA 2025 & 3380 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Pa. Biz Groups, Providers, Uber Want Fault Loophole Closed,” Law360 (Aug. 21, 2025).
    • Representing an estate in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania state court concerning an alleged right of first refusal.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the management agent of the properties in question.  JLD Property Management Group, Inc., et al. v. Estate of Harold D. Dumm, et al., No. 2024-CV-07085 (Dauphin Ctny. Ct. Com. Pl.) (pending).
    • Represented the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and other trade associations and businesses as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the standard of proof required to establish forum non conveniens for a case involving an in-state plaintiff.  Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., 343 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2025).  Amicus brief quoted in article, “Industry Groups Back Appeal of Ruling They Claim ‘Would Effectively Abolish Venue’ in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer (June 17, 2024).
    • Represented a trade association in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to the City of Pittsburgh’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.  Builders Association ofMetropolitan Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., No. 2:22-CV-00706 (W.D. Pa.) (pending).  Complaint featured in the article, “Builders Sue To Stop Pittsburgh’s ‘Inclusionary Zoning’ Rule,” Law360 (May 12, 2022).
    • Represented a school district in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving media access to student records. Central Dauphin School District v. Hawkins, et al., 286 A.3d 726 (Pa. 2022).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal and presented oral argument to the Court.
    • Represented the putative debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  In re Deluxe Building Solutions, LLC, No. 5:21-BK-00534 (Bankr. M.D. Pa.).  As part of the representation, participated in nine non-consecutive days of evidentiary hearings on the putative debtor’s motion to dismiss.
    • Represented a publicly traded company in an appeal of a multi-million-dollar verdict before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The Bert Company v. Turk, et al., 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023).  Appeal involved, among other issues, the calculation of the constitutionally permissible ratio of compensatory-to-punitive damages in multidefendant cases.  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a leading provider of integrated specialty services to the global industrial, commercial, and infrastructure markets in Brand Energy & Infrastructure Servs., et al. v. Irex Corporation, et al., No. 5:16-CV-02499 (E.D. Pa.). Regarded as one of the leading cases nationally on the retroactive application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
    • Representing the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, and other trade associations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the statutory damage caps established in Section 8528 of the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act. Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Chamber Tells Pa. Justices To Keep Gov’t Suit Damages Cap,” Law360 (Aug. 5, 2024).
    • Represented a 50-50 owner of a limited liability company in a shareholder dispute before the Centre County Court of Common Pleas and Tioga County Court of Common Pleas. Shaner, et al. v. Hendrick, et al., 2013-4525 (Centre Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.); Hendrick, et al. v. Shaner, et al., No. 974-CV-2013 (Tioga Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  These companion cases involved the allegation that the other owner breached his fiduciary duties to the company, resulting in over $38 million in damages.
    • Panelist, “2025-2026 Appellate Update," Allegheny County Bar Association 2026 Bench-Bar Conference, June 19, 2026.
    • Presenter, “Nuclear Verdicts, Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements, and Other Hot Topics in Pennsylvania Law,” Association of Corporate Counsel, Central Pennsylvania Chapter, April 2, 2026.
    • Panelist, “Lions, and Tigers, and Nuclear Verdicts, Oh My!  Why Every Healthcare Provider Should Care About Venue Reform, The Recent Epidemic of Outsized Verdicts, and Where We Go From Here,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Medical Society 2025 Joint Medical-Legal Conference, November 12, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Court Tips, Tricks & Insights from the Bench and Bar 2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 20, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2024-2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 22, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Supreme Court Update,” Washington County Bar Association Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 24, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pointers on Appellate Practice,” Dauphin County Bar Association, January 14, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Appalachia Appeal: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Roundup,” Babst Calland Client CLE Day, October 16, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Best Practices for Managing Root Cause Investigations,” Energy Mineral Law Foundation’s 45th Annual Institute, June 11, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Befriending the Court: A Primer on Amicus Curiae Practice Before Pennsylvania Appellate Courts,” Allegheny County Bar Association, May 7, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Review 2023-2024,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 25, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Transformation of Pennsylvania Civil Law 2016-2013,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, September 11, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Top Ten Pennsylvania Appellate Cases,” Allegheny County Bar Association, April 27, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Roundup of Recent and Pending Appellate Decisions in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 18, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Courts Round-Up,” Babst Calland Seminar, February 28, 2023.
    • Panelist, “The New Public Access Regime for Education Records (and Why Life as a School Solicitor Got a Whole Lot Harder),” Allegheny County Bar Association, School and Municipal Law Section, February 16, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Update,” Washington County Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 20, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Practice in Pennsylvania,” OGC University 2022, October 20, 2022.
    • Panelist, “E-Discovery: Navigating Obligations and Disputes in the Middle District of Pennsylvania,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, March 24, 2022.
    • Co-Presenter, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Round-Up 2021,” Virtual CLE, December 7, 2021.
    • Panelist, “Proportionality: One Year Later, A Review of the Practical Implications of the Amendments to the Discovery Rules,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, November 2016.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” Lancaster County Bar Association, March 2013.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” York County Bar Association, April 2013.
    • Co-Author, “Cue Lee Corso: Reprieve From Heightened Standard to Enforce Online Arbitration Agreements May Be Short Lived,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 26, 2026.
    • Co-Author, “Surprise Act: Pending Appeal Involving Last-Minute Amendment Could Presage the Revival of Trial by Ambush in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 4, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “Clearing the Air on Public Nuisance and Preemption: A Look at Climate-Change Litigation in Pa. and Beyond,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 1, 2025.
    • Author “Mo Money Mo Problems: As Noneconomic Damages Awards Continue to Rise, So Do Concerns Over Their Constitutionality,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2025.
    • Author, “Is the Collateral Order Doctrine About to Have a ‘Brat Summer’?,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 7, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “The ‘Roundup’ Round-Up: Will a Recent Third Circuit Ruling Spell the End for Roundup Products Liability Litigation in Pa. State Courts?,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 5, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Stare Decisis: U.S. Supreme Court’s Willingness to Overturn Longstanding Precedent and its Potential Effect on State Appellate Courts,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 15, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Blurred Lines: The Ongoing Battle Between iLottery and iGaming,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 29, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Forum Non Conveniens – Pennsylvania’s Jurisdiction Jigsaw Puzzle,” The Legal Intelligencer, January 27, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “To Infinity and Beyond? Pennsylvania Supreme Court Casts Doubt Upon Presumptive Constitutional Limit for Punitive Damages,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “It’s Groundhog Day for Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 25, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “Questions Abound Following Right-to-Know Law Decision Involving Student Records,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 20, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno (But We Should): Why Uncertainty Still Persists Regarding the ‘Gist of the Action’ Doctrine in Pennsylvania,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 2, 2023.
    • Author, “Checklist: Metadata Fields to Consider,” Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2021.
    • Author, “Guide to Understanding, Using, & Analyzing Metadata in Litigation,” Bloomberg Law, June 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Time-Barred Claims of Sex Abuse in Pa.—Litigation and Legislative Developments,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 12, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Consumer Protection Law Ruling Could Spell Big Trouble for Pennsylvania Businesses,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Federal DTSA: New Weapon in the Battle to Protect Trade Secrets,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 27, 2016.
    • Co-Author, “Court Limits Ability to Allege FCA Violations Over Post-Employment Conduct,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 29, 2015.
    • Author, “Pa. High Court Tort Ruling Is Relief To Local Gov’t,” Law360.com, November 24, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “Products Liability Practitioners Anxiously Await Tincher Ruling,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “CWA Ruling Could Be National Victory For Municipalities,” The Legal Intelligencer, September 30, 2013.

Firm Highlights

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. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirmed Workers’ Compensation Order Striking Defenses and Ordering Treatment

Kneezel v. Lambertville House, No. A-2729-24 (June 1, 2026) In Kneezel v. Lambertville House, Lambertville House appealed from a workers’ compensation order to strike its defenses and directing it to authorize knee replacement surgery. By way of background, the petitioner worked as a property manager for Lambertville and injured his back and knee in December 2019. A workers’ compensation claim was filed and the petitioner treated at Rothman Institute. He underwent four injections to his low back and was recommended for surgery. The day before, Lambertville canceled and set up a second opinion exam with Dr. Lawrence Barr. The petitioner filed a motion for medical and temporary benefits (MMT), which was ultimately granted by the workers’ compensation judge. As such, he received authorized treatment for his back. The petitioner was then referred for his left knee pain and treatment was provided by Lambertville. He was recommended for a knee replacement, but the petitioner declined at that time. Approximately two years later, he sought additional treatment, which was denied. After obtaining a report from Dr. Dhimant Balar, the petitioner filed another MMT. In response, Lambertville submitted Dr. Zachwieja’s report and surveillance reports. Dr. Balar opined the left knee injury was related to the work accident, whereas Dr. Zachwieja believed it was due to his advanced degeneration as there was no evidence of acute trauma. A hearing on the MMT began in November 2024, with the petitioner testifying his knee pain never went away and he had a lot of trouble walking, especially for more than five to ten minutes. The surveillance investigators were scheduled to testify after, but had to be rescheduled a couple of times. During a conference in early February 2025, prior to when the investigators were to testify, it was discovered that Lambertville did not provide discovery to the petitioner, including the investigators’ information and surveillance footage. The petitioner moved to strike Lambertville’s defenses and sought an order to authorize the left knee treatment. Petitioner’s counsel pointed to Lambertville’s unreasonable delay in providing the necessary information and Lambertville did not file an opposition. In March 2025, the investigators’ testimonies were set for mid-March. On March 14, 2025, petitioner’s counsel advised she was still waiting for discovery and the judge directed Lambertville’s counsel to provide any missing information by March 17, 2025. Lambertville provided video clips after the petitioner had testified so the judge indicated that if everything was not provided to petitioner’s counsel by the end of March 19, 2025, the judge would sign the order granting the MMT. The next day, the judge entered the order striking Lambertville’s defenses and ordering left knee treatment. Lambertville moved for reconsideration of stay of the order pending appeal. Following oral arguments, the judge denied Lambertville’s motion, citing N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.11 (a)(4)(i) that Lambertville was required to provide surveillance after the petitioner’s testimony and that it had failed to do so even after he testified in November 2024. The judge also noted the investigators’ testimonies were rescheduled multiple times and Lambertville had more than enough time to provide the requested information and failed to do so. The judge also noted Lambertville failed to file a response to the petitioner’s motion to strike. In addition, the judge pointed to the petitioner’s testimony, finding him to be credible and observing him to have to stand and move multiple times during testimony. Lambertville appealed, arguing its due process rights were violated as there was no opportunity to be heard and the order was procedurally and factually defective. However, the Appellate Division disagreed, noting Lambertville had sufficient notice and many opportunities to be heard. It was noted Lambertville’s failure to comply with the judge’s requests led to the order. As for the motion to strike, the Appellate Division indicated Lambertville failed to oppose the motion, which provided the judge with the ability to decide without a hearing for an uncontested motion. Ultimately, the Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judge’s rulings and order.

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

Thought Leadership

Employer/Carriers Must Explicitly Invoke Right to Deny Claim Under “Pay and Investigate” Statutory Provision; Employes Must Always Prove Medical Necessity of Treatment

Koren v. City of Kissimmee/PGCS, ___So.3d___(Fla 1st DCA 6/10/26) The majority opinion in Koren holds that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) properly denied psychiatric treatment because the claimant did not challenge on appeal the JCC’s finding that the requested treatment was not medically necessary. However, Judge K. Thomas authored a detailed concurrence agreeing with the result on the ground that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proving medical necessity. In doing so, Judge K. Thomas also emphasized an important principle: employer/carriers must expressly invoke the 120-day pay-and-investigate provision under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act if they intend to preserve their right to deny compensability. Merely authorizing evaluations, without explicitly invoking the 120-day rule, may be insufficient to preserve the right to deny compensability of specific injuries. In Koren, the claimant sustained injuries to his upper lip, tooth, right knee, and right foot when a board gave way on a deck he was repairing for the employer/carrier. The accident was accepted as compensable, and multiple specialists were authorized to treat his physical injuries, including an ear, nose, and throat physician, dentist, orthopedist, and plastic surgeon. The claimant later sought psychiatric treatment and attended an independent medical examination (IME) with a psychiatrist. The IME diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, opining that the condition was caused by “the actual appearance of the scar” resulting from the industrial accident. The IME recommended continued medication, including an antidepressant, as well as follow-up care with a psychiatrist and psychologist. Critically, however, the IME did not offer an opinion regarding the medical necessity of this treatment. The claimant then filed a petition for benefits attaching the IME report and requesting authorization of psychiatric care. The employer/carrier responded by authorizing a psychiatrist, whom the claimant did, in fact, see. However, the employer/carrier neither denied the claim nor issued written notice invoking the 120-day pay-and-investigate provision. The authorized psychiatrist subsequently opined that the claimant’s psychiatric condition was unrelated to the industrial accident and instead attributable to prior employment as a law enforcement officer and volunteer firefighter. The psychiatrist further concluded that the work accident was not the major contributing cause of the condition. Although the employer/carrier stipulated to the authorization of the psychiatrist, it ultimately denied the claimant’s entitlement to psychiatric treatment. The JCC denied the requested benefit. The majority opinion affirmed on the narrow ground that medical necessity had not been established. Judge K. Thomas’s concurrence, however, expands on the legal framework. Under Florida law, an employer/carrier presented with a claim must “pay, pay and investigate, or deny.” To avail itself of the 120-day pay-and-investigate protection, the employer/carrier must affirmatively and explicitly invoke that option, typically through a written 120-day letter. The statutory investigative period does not arise automatically upon the provision of care. Furthermore, an attempt to characterize authorization as a “one-time evaluation” does not avoid waiver, as even a single evaluation may constitute the provision of a compensable benefit. By authorizing psychiatric care without invoking the 120-day provision, the employer/carrier in Koren effectively accepted compensability of the claimant’s PTSD condition. Nonetheless, it retained the ability to contest entitlement to ongoing treatment. While the employer/carrier failed to demonstrate a break in the causal chain, the claimant still bore the burden of proving that the requested treatment was medically necessary. Because the JCC found that the claimant failed to meet this burden, and the claimant did not challenge that finding either below or on appeal, the denial of psychiatric benefits was ultimately affirmed.