.

Keri L. Morris-Johnston

Shareholder

KLMorris@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Keri L. Morris-Johnston

Keri's practice is devoted to Delaware workers' compensation and employment law defense (including discrimination and whistleblower protection), in addition to federal employment law defense. Throughout her legal career, she has represented clients including automobile assembly plants, nursing homes, hospitals, security companies and retailers in matters pertaining to workers' compensation and employment law. She is also experienced in handling matters for non-profits and fast food franchises, and advising clients in relation to owner controlled insurance policies. Keri is especially adept at assisting and educating small employers on issues pertaining to workers' compensation.

In addition to managing the Workers' Compensation Department in the Wilmington office, Keri has also served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks.

While attending Widener University School of Law, Keri worked for the Delaware Department of Labor, where she handled a wide variety of employment, labor and civil rights issues. Keri investigated allegations of employment discrimination and wage and hour violations, including alleged prevailing wage violations and child labor violations. 

Keri is a graduate of the University of Delaware, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice. She remains involved with her alma mater, serving as an advisor for the Alpha Sigma Alpha sorority.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2003)
    • University of Delaware (B.A., 1998)
    • Delaware, 2005
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, 2005
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2005
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers (2023-2027)
    • Top Lawyer, Workers' Compensation Employer Defense, Delaware Today (November 2024)
    • Top Lawyer, Workers' Compensation Employer Defense, Delaware Today (November 2022)
    • Top Lawyer, Workers' Compensation for Employers, Delaware Today (November 2020)
    • Associated Builders and Contractors, associate member, Legislative and Legal Rights Committee
    • Delaware State Bar Association; member, Workers' Compensation Section
    • Randy J. Holland Delaware Workers' Compensation Inn of Court
    • Whoops I Did It Again - The Legal Implications of Successive Injuries, panelist, Delaware State Bar Association and the Industrial Accident Board Workers' Compensation Seminar 2023, Wilmington, Delaware, May 2, 2023
    • Considerations Surrounding a Discharge, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • A State-By-State Guide to Avoiding Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Ethics and the Practice of Workers’ Compensation, Delaware State Bar Association William D. Rimmer Workers’ Compensation Seminar 2022, Wilmington, Delaware, May 3, 2022
    • Workers' Compensation Winter Roundup, Graham Company webinar, December 15, 2020
    • Understanding the Debate with the ADA, FMLA and Workers’ Compensation, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 27, 2020
    • Subsequent Injury and Successive Carrier Liability, Holland Inns of Court, October 13, 2020
    • Ethical Considerations During COVID-19, Delaware State Bar Association, September 15, 2020 
    • Pot For Pain, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • Ingredients for Successfully Defending Claims for Work Injuries at Home, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • Defense Counsel Wish List, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2016
    • Put Me In Coach: Top 10 Opportunities in Claims and Litigation Management, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • Employment Law Update and Workers' Compensation Basics, Delaware State Dental Society, Dover, Delaware, March 19, 2015
    • Case Law Update, Delaware State Bar Association Workers' Compensation Seminar, January 21, 2015
    • Navigating The Bermuda Triangle: The Intersection of Workers' Compensation, FMLA and ADA, Roadmap to Success - Understanding Workers' Compensation, Marshall Dennehey seminar, October 24, 2013
    • Prevailing Wage Law in Delaware, April 2005
    • "New EEOC Procedures for the Release of Position Statements" and "EEOC Lawsuits Challenge Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination," Legal Updates for Employment Law, May 2016
    • "Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Unemployment Compensation Benefits … Are Injured Workers Entitled to Both?," Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014
    • "Delaware Whistleblowers' Act Applies to Constructively Discharged Employees?," Defense Digest, Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2012
    • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2011-present
    • "Updates To Delaware's Workers' Compensation Statute," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2007

Results

View all

Successful defense of COVID-19 claim involving a registered nurse.

The plaintiff alleged she was exposed to COVID-19 while caring for a patient and infected both of her adult sons. One son died from COVID-19. We argued that COVID-19 was not an occupational disease and that she could not establish she contracted COVID-19 at work. The Industrial Accident Board agreed, resulting in a significant win for the employer.

Thought Leadership

View all

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim Based on Witness Credibility

September 22, 2026

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court decision upholding the Industrial Accident Board's denial of a petition for workers' compensation benefits. The Court ruled that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, deferring to the Board's findings regarding witness credibility and medical expert testimony. Prince Parker worked for The Borsello Companies, Inc., where his duties included operating a forklift and mixing mortar. He alleged a lumbar spine injury on February 19, 2024 and reported his injury immediately, although the company denied receiving any such report. It was not until ten days later, on February 29, 2024, Parker sent a text message to a project manager stating his work activities were "screwing [his] back up." Parker was advised to contact the company president. There was no evidence he did and continued his normal work activities. In mid-March 2024, Parker was terminated for insubordination. On March 21, 2024, over a month after the alleged work incident, Parker went to the emergency room for back pain.  Emergency room records reflected Parker reported his back pain had been ongoing for over a year, denied any recent trauma, and stated he had not followed up on a prior referral to see a specialist. After the employer denied the claim for benefits, Parker filed a petition with the Board seeking wage loss benefits and payment of outstanding medical bills. The Board heard conflicting medical expert testimony and testimony from the claimant and employer witnesses. The Board, after hearing the testimony, denied Parker's petition, finding that he failed to establish a compensable injury. They did not find Parker’s testimony credible that he suffered a work injury. The Superior Court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed and rejected several challenges raised by Parker. Most importantly, the court emphasized that under Delaware law, the Board has exclusive responsibility for weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in testimony.  The court deferred to the Board's decision to find Parker’s testimony not credible due to his ten-day delay in reporting back pain, his failure to seek immediate medical treatment, and his emergency room statements denying recent trauma.  Since the claimant’s expert relied on the information from Parker, his opinion was discredited. The Board properly found the defense expert’s opinion more persuasive. It is extremely important to ascertain all information related to when the alleged injury occurred, how it occurred and determine if the injured worker is providing the same version of events to the medical providers and the claims handler. Cases turn on credibility and the Board is tasked with making those findings.

Case Law Alerts

In order to qualify for unemployment benefits, the unemployed individual must be able and available to work.

July 1, 2023

The plaintiff had been out of work for medical reasons for several months. She was medically cleared to return to work in March 2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her pre-existing medical condition, her medical provider felt it “was too dangerous for her to work until she was vaccinated.” She asked her employer for a position where she did not have to interact with customers. The employer was not able to offer her a position with this restriction. She filed for unemployment benefits and received benefits until December of 2021, when she received notice that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits.  19 Del. C. § 3315(3), requires that employees be able and available to work in order to receive unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy, Appeals Referee and the Unemployment Insurance Board found that the plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not able and available to work. Even though she provided testimony that she had been looking for work-from-home positions, the evidence established that her medical provider had not released her to return to work without restrictions.  The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Delaware Superior Court. An appeal to the Superior Court evaluates the record to determine if the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The decision will only be overturned if the Board has acted “arbitrarily and capriciously or exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances … so as to produce injustice.”  In the appeal, the plaintiff argued that she was able, available, and actively seeking work and would have stayed employed had she been accommodated by not having to interact with customers. The court made clear that a claimant is not “able and available” if she is cleared to work with restrictions that an employer cannot accommodate. The court found that the Board’s decision to deny the plaintiff benefits was supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s decision was affirmed and ordered the plaintiff to repay the unemployment benefits she received.      Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars