.

Christopher N. Santoro

Senior Counsel

CNSantoro@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Christopher N. Santoro

Chris has over 30 years of litigation experience handling major casualty, toxic tort, and product liability matters. He has significant experience in handling toxic tort matters involving exposure to alleged hazardous substances and has successfully defended major corporations in hundreds of cases at the trial level. Since joining Marshall Dennehey in 2002, Chris has expanded his practice to handling matters involving asbestos, silica, vinyl chloride, benzene, lead, cadmium, legionella, various dusts, lubricants, and other allegedly hazardous materials. He continues to be an active trial lawyer and has tried over 150 jury trials to verdict.

Chris began his career as an associate at Krusen Evans & Byrne and settled upon a defense practice focusing on product liability, personal injury, property damage, and toxic tort matters. He gained experience handling a wide variety of matters and tried numerous jury trials to verdict.

In 1989, Chris was instrumental in forming a firm that concentrated in toxic tort matters, and the firm quickly established itself as one of the leading firms in asbestos litigation. He served as the managing partner for eleven years.  The firm rapidly grew under his leadership. It was during this time that Chris concentrated his practice in the field of toxic torts and quickly became one of the most active and successful toxic tort trial lawyers. Representing Owens Corning, he served as lead trial counsel in the Philadelphia area asbestos litigation. In addition, he participated in the development of strategies and techniques for the handling of complex, multi-party toxic tort litigation.

While at Marshall Dennehey, Chris has tried numerous cases to verdict with all but two (2) resulting in defense verdicts.  One plaintiff's verdict was overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the grant of a new trial affirmed by an En Banc Panel of the  Pennsylvania Superior Court.

At the request of various clients, Chris has organized and/or given presentations at various seminars. In addition, he has lectured on a variety of topics involving trial techniques and has participated in numerous CLE seminars.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1984)
    • La Salle University (B.A., cum laude, 1981)
    • Pennsylvania, 1984
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    • American Board of Trial Advocates
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2023-2026)
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2006-2007, 2018-2019)
    • American Bar Association
    • American Board of Trial Advocates, Diplomat
    • Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Hearing Committee Member
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Defending Household Exposure Cases, Mealey's National Asbestos SuperConference, Phoenix, AZ, September 2008 
    • Defending Toxic Tort Cases, AIG Environmental Unit, New York, NY, November 2007 
    • Silca Litigation and Assembly Line Diagnosing, AIG Domestic Claims Toxic Tort Unit, May 2006 
    • Opening Statements, Marshall Dennehey Trial Advocacy Class, May 2006 
    • Trying The Automobile Brake Case, Goodyear Tire & Rubber National Counsel Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 2005 
    • Cross Examination, Marshall Dennehey Trial Advocacy Class, October 2005 and October 2006 
    • "Tooey Is Not Just a Bunch of “Hooey”— Practical Tactics for Defending an Employer in the Realm of Toxic Tort Litigation,"Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014, co-author
    • "The Dose Is the Poison --The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Questions the 'Each and Every Breath' or 'Any Exposure' Theory," Defense Digest, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2008
    • "Assumption of Risk in Product Liability," Counterpoint, April 1989 
    • Obtained a unanimous defense verdict after a nine week trial in Suffolk County, New York, where the plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award $40 million in damages.  The plaintiff was 51 years old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma allegedly as a result of being exposed to asbestos containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. Plaintiff who was 56 at the time of trial, testified that she had little or no knowledge of ever being exposed to asbestos. However, her older sister, who served as the only product identification witness at trial, testified that she recalled that their father used asbestos containing joint compound on two occasions, approximately fifty years ago when he repaired their home after a fire in 1970 and when he built a home in Florida around 1975. Plaintiff was five and ten years old respectively during the alleged exposures and plaintiff’s sister was seven years older. Plaintiff’s sister testified that she had a vivid memory of her father using six different joint compounds during the two projects, including our client’s product. She also testified that the plaintiff was present hundreds of times when their father mixed, applied and sanded the joint compound. At trial, we called an industrial hygienist, a toxicologist and an epidemiologist who testified that the type of asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound did not cause or contribute to her mesothelioma, because the fibers are too short and do not cause disease. Our epidemiologist testified that plaintiff’s mesothelioma developed spontaneously and was not the result of asbestos exposure. We also called a construction expert, who testified that the sister’s testimony regarding the amount of joint compound used and the time the sister was exposed were excessive. The jury deliberated an hour before returning the verdict. Post-trial comments from jurors indicated they did not find the sister to be credible.
    • Obtained a voluntary dismissal on behalf of an aircraft parts supplier in an asbestos mesothelioma case. The plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of exposure to numerous asbestos products while doing home renovation work with his father in the 1940s, while in the U.S. Air Force working as an aircraft mechanic between 1953 to 1957, as a self-employed painter between 1958 and 1960, as a civilian aircraft maintenance crew chief at the Willow Grove Air Force Base between 1959 to 1968, and non-occupationally doing automotive and home repair work. The plaintiff contended our client was the exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing fire sleeves for military aircraft hose assemblies that he worked with almost on a daily basis while at Willow Grove. Based upon the plaintiff's description of the product during his trial video and discovery depositions, our client took the position that the product could not have been supplied by them. All other defendants either settled or were dismissed, and our client took a no-pay position. As the case neared trial, plaintiff's counsel presented his evidence as to why the product identified by the plaintiff was accurate and, therefore, why we should settle the case. Through a combination of the plaintiff's testimony, our witness's prior testimony, select portions of catalog pages and drawings from the aircraft the plaintiff worked on, and catalog pages from our client's catalogs, plaintiff's counsel was persuaded to voluntarily dismiss our client shortly before trial was to begin in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    • Obtained a unanimous 12-0 defense verdict after a two week trial in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, where the plaintiff was seeking approximately $40 million in damages. In this asbestos litigation case, it was alleged that the decedent contracted and died at the age of 76 from mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The decedent worked as an electrician for 40 years and contended he worked in the vicinity of drywall workers at various commercial worksites throughout Albuquerque and New Mexico. The plaintiff contended that our client’s joint compound was defective because it was sold without a warning of the well-established dangers of asbestos. Further, the plaintiff argued that our client was negligent, because it knew or should have known of the dangers of asbestos that were readily available from as early as the 1930s. The defense argued that the asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound was safe, because the fibers were short fibers and not known to increase the risk of disease. It was further argued that our client acted reasonably and in a timely manner, when it placed a government-mandated warning on their product in the early 1970s. Lastly, it was argued that the only product identification witness called by the plaintiff was not credible, because he gave three depositions in 2017 and did not identify our client’s product. He first identified our client’s product during his fourth deposition in late 2019, when our client was the only remaining defendant. The jury found our client’s product was not defective, but that they were negligent. However, the jury found the negligence was not a cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma.
    • Defense verdicts for welding rod manufacturers in cases involving alleged exposure to asbestos, including:
    • Defense verdict for a welding rod manufacturer following a two week trial in Philadelphia County before Judge Ramy I. Djerassi.   The plaintiff alleged her decedent husband, who died at the age of 77, contracted lung cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding rods manufactured by our clients. The decedent was a former smoker, quitting 50 years ago but he was diagnosed with emphysema.  The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for 50 minutes.  (The Estate of Stephen Matkowsky v. Airco).
    • Defense verdict for a manufacturer of welding supplies following a trial before Judge Ramy I. Djerassi in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  The plaintiff alleged her decedent husband, who died at the age of 59, contracted colon cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding blankets manufactured by our client.  The defense argued that there is no medical or scientific causation between asbestos exposure and colon cancer and that it was the decedent's family history of colon cancer and lack of screening which caused his condition.  The jury of 12 returned a unanimous defense verdict.  (The Estate of Louis Goll v. Airco).
    • Defense verdict in a jury trial before Judge Esther Sylvester in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  The 72 year old living plaintiff claimed he developed lung cancer as a result of working with welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company, Hobart Brothers and Airco.  As a result of his cancer, the plaintiff had his left lung removed and had multiple post operative complications.  The defendants claimed that their welding rods did not release asbestos fibers and their products did not contribute to the plaintiff's lung cancer.  The jury was charged that if they found that the defendants' products contained asbestos that, as a matter of law, they must find that the product was defective.  After two hours of deliberations, the jury in a 10 to 2 decision, found that all three of the defendants' products contained asbestos, but that they were not defective. (Donald Dimmick v. Airco).
    • Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge John Herron, Administrative Judge of the Complex Litigation Center in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff alleged her decedent husband contracted lung cancer as a result of being exposed to asbestos from welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company and Hobart Brothers, while welding when he worked as a maintenance mechanic.  Plaintiff was 70 years old when he died.  The defense was that welding rods to not release free asbestos fibers and that the decedent's lung cancer was caused by his heavy history of smoking cigarettes.  The jury returned a defense verdict in 22 minutes.  (The Estate of Stephen Fitzpatrick v. Lincoln Electric Company).
    • Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge Norman Ackerman in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff contended he was symptomatic with shortness of breath and had pulmonary function abnormalities as a result of pleural plaques he developed while working with asbestos containing welding rods.  The case was tried reverse bifurcated and during the first phase the defense argued that pleural plaques are a benign condition that do not cause symptoms.  The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $150,000 and $0 on the spouse's loss of consortium claim.  During the second phase the defense argued that welding rods do not release respirable fibers and any asbestos related condition the plaintiff developed was caused by exposure to other asbestos containing products.  At the conclusion of phase II, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense. (David Myers v. Lincoln Electric Company).
    • Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge George Overton in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, involving a 71 year old gentleman who worked as a plumber and auto mechanic and did welding several hours a week over a 25 year period.  He contended that he developed mesothelioma and died as result of his work with welding rods which contained asbestos. The case was tried reverse bifurcated and the defense did not dispute that the mesothelioma was caused by asbestos in the first phase of the case.  The jury returned a damage verdict of $365,000.  In the liability phase of the trial, the welding rod defendants were the only defendants that chose to defend their product and contended that welding rods do not release asbestos fibers that are respirable and the mesothelioma was caused by extensive exposure to asbestos insulation products and not welding rods.  Both phases of the case took two weeks to try and at the conclusion of the second phase of the case, the jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating just 30 minutes. (Estate of Rollin Bankes v. Hobart Brothers).
    • Defense verdict in a case tried before Judge Eugene Maier in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas involving a 63 year old Septa mechanic who contended that he developed lung cancer and died as a result of working with welding rods which contained asbestos.  The defense contended that the lung cancer was caused by the decedents long history of smoking, including continuing to smoke after he was diagnosed with the lung cancer.  The case was tried reverse bifurcated and after 40 minutes the jury returned a verdict for the defense after the first phase of the case.  (Orlando Williams v. Airco).
    • Defense verdict after a three week jury trial in front of Judge Stephen Baratta in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff alleged that he had developed mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost exclusively caused by asbestos, as a result of working with welding rods manufactured by our client The Lincoln Electric Company.  Plaintiff was 80 years old at the time of trial.  The theory was that the flux coating on welding rods when manipulated released respirable asbestos fibers into the air which the plaintiff inhaled over many years while working as a steamfitter from 1950's until the 1970's.  On the eve of trial, plaintiff produced two cans of Lincoln asbestos containing welding rods that he contended were removed from a jobsite over thirty years ago and stored in his garage.  Lincoln's defense was that because the asbestos in the flux coating is encapsulated in a sodium silicate binder that it was not possible that fibers of the proper size and shape could be released and inhaled by the plaintiff.  In support of the defense an expert witness in fracture mechanics from MIT was called, as well as a certified industrial hygienist and a pulmonology expert.  After deliberating for about seven hours, the jury returned an unanimous verdict in favor of Lincoln.  (Michael Messinger v. Lincoln Electric Company).
    • Other representative matters:
    • Dooley v. Bondex.  Reverse bifurcated trial before Judge Victor DiNubile in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff/Decedent died at the age of 84 as a result of pleural mesothelioma he alleged was caused by his work with asbestos containing products, including Bondex joint compound, primarily while performing home repairs and renovations.  The decedent was a high ranking union official with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 454.  Plaintiff's counsel made a mid six figure demand prior to trial.  A favorable settlement was reached while the jury was deliberating after phase I when plaintiff's counsel accepted what had been offered prior to trial.
    • Davis v. Goodyear.  Obtained a defense verdict for Goodyear Tire and Rubber, after a three week jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Stephen Levin.  Plaintiff contended that he developed lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of working with asbestos containing brakes that he allegedly purchased at Goodyear service centers over a period of many years.  Plaintiff had surgery in 2003 where half of his lung was removed.  He was 72 years old at the time of trial and plaintiff's expert pulmonologist opined that the plaintiff's prognosis was poor and most likely would not survive five years after the surgery.  Goodyear contended that plaintiff could not have purchased brakes from them, because they were not a retailer of automotive parts and do not sell to the general public.  Rather, they operate service centers where they install all parts that they sell.  During the first phase of the reverse bifurcated trial, the defense contended that plaintiff did not have asbestosis and his lung cancer was caused by a long cigarette smoking history, although the plaintiff had stopped smoking 10 years before his diagnosis.  After deliberating for two days, the jury returned a defense verdict.  It was the first asbestos case in the country where Goodyear had gone to verdict.
    • Roth v. Kaiser Gypsum.  Plaintiff contended that he developed and died as a result developing pleural mesothelioma from working with various asbestos containing product including wall board manufactured by Kaiser Gypsum.  The case was tried reverse bifurcated before Judge Alex Bonivitacola in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff's counsel settlement demand was in the low six figures with approximately ten shares in the case.  After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $200,000.  A favorable settlement was reached after phase I.
    • Bednar v. DAP.  Defense verdict obtained in a trial before Judge Ricardo Jackson in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas .  Plaintiff alleged that he developed and died at the age of 43 as a result of peritoneal mesothelioma. It was contended that the decedent was exposed to various asbestos containing products, including asbestos containing caulk manufactured by DAP, which were a substantial factor in the cause of the decedent's disease.  The defense contended that the chrysotile asbestos to which plaintiff was exposed was not a cause of the peritoneal  mesothelioma.    The case was tried reverse bifurcated and after phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the decedent's mesothelioma was not caused by his asbestos exposure.
    • Engro v. Pep Boys.  In a reverse bifurcated trial, tried before Judge Richard Glazer in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas it was contended that the decedent contracted pleural mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while performing brake changes on his personal vehicles.   It was alleged that the brakes were purchased at various Pep Boys' stores.  Prior to trial plaintiff's counsel issued a mid-six figure settlement demand.  After phase I the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $400,000.  A favorable settlement was reached after phase I.
    • O'Kane v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc., 1988 WL 54024 (Fed Dist Low ATL PA 3 1988) 
    • Golden v. Williard Co., 521 Pa. 528, 557 A.2d (1989)  
    • Bittinger v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 1986 WL 14195 (E.D.Pa 1986) 

Results

View all

After Nine-Week Trial, Unanimous Defense Verdict in Asbestos Case Where $40 Million in Damages Had Been Sought

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict after a nine-week trial in Suffolk County, New York, where the plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award $40 million in damages. The plaintiff was 51 years old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The plaintiff, who was 56 at the time of trial, testified that she had little or no knowledge of ever being exposed to asbestos. However, her older sister, who served as the only product identification witness at trial, testified that she recalled that their father used asbestos-containing joint compound on two occasions, approximately 50 years ago, when he repaired their home after a fire in 1970 and when he built a home in Florida around 1975. The plaintiff was five years old during the alleged exposures, and her sister was seven years older. The plaintiff’s sister testified that she had a vivid memory of her father using six different joint compounds during the two projects, including our client’s product. She also testified that the plaintiff was present hundreds of times when their father mixed, applied and sanded the joint compound. At trial, we called an industrial hygienist, a toxicologist and an epidemiologist, who testified that the type of asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound did not cause or contribute to her mesothelioma because the fibers are too short and do not cause disease. Our epidemiologist testified that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma developed spontaneously and was not the result of asbestos exposure. We also called a construction expert, who testified that the sister’s testimony regarding the amount of joint compound used and the time the sister was exposed were excessive. The jury deliberated an hour before returning the verdict. Post-trial comments from jurors indicated they did not find the sister to be credible.

Voluntary Dismissal of Client in Asbestos Mesothelioma Case

Our attorneys secured a voluntary dismissal on behalf of an aircraft parts supplier in an asbestos mesothelioma case. The plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of exposure to numerous asbestos products while doing home renovation work with his father in the 1940s; while in the U.S. Air Force working as an aircraft mechanic between 1953 to 1957; as a self-employed painter between 1958 and 1960; and as a civilian aircraft maintenance crew chief at the Willow Grove Air Force Base between 1959 to 1968. The plaintiff contended our client was the exclusive supplier of asbestos-containing fire sleeves for military aircraft hose assemblies that he worked with almost on a daily basis while at Willow Grove. Based upon the plaintiff’s description of the product during his trial video and discovery depositions, our client took the position that the product could not have been supplied by them. All other defendants either settled or were dismissed, and our client took a no-pay position. As the case neared trial, plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence as to why the product identified by the plaintiff was accurate and, therefore, why the case should be settled. Through a combination of the plaintiff’s testimony, our witness’s prior testimony, select portions of catalog pages and drawings from the aircraft the plaintiff worked on, and catalog pages from our client’s catalogs, plaintiff’s counsel was persuaded to voluntarily dismiss our client shortly before trial was to begin. 

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Legislation Proposed to Reduce the Cost of Prescription Topical Drugs

In March, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1215 was introduced in an effort to address the high cost of prescription topical drugs. According to the bill’s sponsor, the issue is excessive reimbursement rates for topical drugs that are essentially alternate versions of readily available, less expensive over the counter drugs. A study performed by The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), shows that Pennsylvania has the highest share of prescription reimbursements and the highest average quarterly payments for topical drugs.  The proposed bill would provide for payment for each ingredient separately, instead of reimbursing a single inflated price, deny payment if an ingredient lacks a valid National Drug Code, limit total reimbursement to $400 per 30 day supply no matter what ingredients are used, ban reimbursement for compound drugs that duplicate existing commercial drugs, and add a flat $20 compounding fee for pharmacies or physicians who prepare the medication. The goal? To eliminate inflated billing practices and reduce costs for employers and insurers.  Currently, the bill is in committee. We will monitor the proposed legislation as it advances and provide updates as to any significant developments that may occur. 

News

Tiere J. Phillips Elected to the Judicial Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

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

NJ Workers' Compensation Legislation Update

A couple more bills were introduced for the 2026-27 session. Any updates since February have been highlighted in bold. A1023 | S3984 Medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045 Certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3724 Personal liability to employer officers for failure to pay for coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617 Certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026, and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 Inclusion in database of appointed officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. A1870 | S1379 Workers' compensation benefits for certain workers due to September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S2290 Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A3167 | S2372 Workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S3144 Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026, and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342 Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A3548 | S3571 Maximum benefits for certain volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment.. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Thought Leadership

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*

RESULTS* Ben Durstein (Wilmington) obtained a favorable decision involving a claimant who fractured his patella in a work accident requiring two surgeries. The IAB rejected the claimant’s medical expert’s opinion that he sustained a 25% permanent impairment to the right lower extremity. Instead, the board accepted the opinion of the employer’s medical expert that the appropriate permanency was 13% utilizing the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a claim petition alleging new injuries and periods of disability dismissed based on full recovery. The claimant was injured when his skid loader was struck by another loader in the process of baling hay. Original injuries were accepted and the claimant returned to work. Thereafter, the claimant abandoned work and filed a claim petition to assert new injuries and extended disability. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical expert stunningly revealed his failure to review claimant testimony, his lack of awareness of a social security disability decision detailing the existence of claimant’s alleged work-related conditions prior to the date of work injury, and his failure to understand that the claimant admitted to full recovery of injuries for which he was continuing to treat. Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a Medicare conditional payment lien third level appeal. The United States government alleged a Medicare conditional lien payment was due and owing in the upper six-figure range based on an auto accident and PIP policy for which the government conditionally became the primary carrier. The government argued that our client, the PIP carrier, was the primary payer and, under federal law, must reimburse the government for its conditional lien payment. At the third-level appeal hearing, the government’s position was refuted by the revelation that the date of injury tied to the medical bills associated with the lien was glaringly and chronologically prior to the insurer’s PIP policy date. The court held that based on this evidence and argument, the government could not meet its requirements to assert a lien against our client. A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) and John Abda (Scranton) successfully had a workers’ compensation claim petition granted for medical benefits only for a closed period with no wage loss awarded. The claimant alleged multiple injuries as the result of a very minor motor vehicle incident where a co-worker’s delivery van rolled down an incline of approximately six feet, and bumped into the rear of the claimant’s delivery van. He claimed he was thrown forward and suffered head and neck injuries, along with aggravating a pre-existing ankle injury. The claimant was also terminated following the accident for having a large hunting knife in his van, which was against the employer’s workplace violence policy. The judge granted the claim for a mild concussion and an ankle contusion, but terminated medical benefits as of the date of our IME’s. The judge found that no wage loss benefits were payable as the claimant was terminated for cause and work remained available to him. The judge found our medical experts to be more credible than the claimant’s, along with finding our four employer witnesses to all be credible. The trial team was assisted by paralegal Bonnie Zemek (King of Prussia). 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 was 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. *Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome NEWS Heather Carbone (Jacksonville) was a panelist for a webinar hosted by The Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals (WCCP) Association. As part of the “Meet the Experts” Series, the speakers addressed “Afterthoughts that Undermine a Successful Mediation,” highlighting the pitfalls and challenges of underprepared or unprepared mediation participants. The discussion included appropriate pre-mediation communications, setting of expectations, management of expectations, and working through the unexpected or unprepared. Attendees gained ideas about how and when to prepare, best practices, and the potential for non-parties (spouse, significant other, risk owners-insurers) to have differing perspectives or concerns than the actual employee and employer. On May 21-22, 2026, A. Judd Woytek, (King of Prussia) joined a panel at the CLM Alliance (Claims and Litigation Management Alliance) Work Comp Conference in Nashville to present "We See You: How Employee Engagement Enhances Work Comp Outcomes." Judd and his fellow panelists discussed the positive impact of employee engagement on claim outcomes, return-to-work timelines, and overall claim costs.

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.