.

Kristy Olivo Salvitti

Shareholder

KOSalvitti@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Kristy Olivo Salvitti

As a shareholder in the Workers' Compensation Department, Kristy devotes her entire practice to workers' compensation defense litigation, representing universities, hospitals, construction companies, retailers, health care institutions, temporary employment agencies, supermarkets and various other small employers. Kristy is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, making her one of few attorneys in the firm who handle workers' compensation matters in both jurisdictions. Her knowledge and commitment to clients, as well as her professionalism toward her adversaries, have resulted in her being selected as a Super Lawyer - Rising Star in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Kristy attended Monmouth University on a lacrosse scholarship, earning honors including Athletic and Academic All-American, Northeast Conference Athletic and Scholar Athlete of the Year. She was also named Monmouth's Woman Athlete of the Year. Upon graduation, Kristy attended Widener University School of Law. While at Widener, she served on the editorial board of the Widener Law Review. Kristy also interned at the Burlington County Prosecutor's office and served as a mediator for landlord/tenant disputes in Philadelphia.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 2002)
    • Monmouth University (B.S., 1999)
    • New Jersey, 2002
    • Pennsylvania, 2002
    • New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005-2007)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2013-2017)
      The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • American Bar Association
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Strategies to Limit Exposure and Minimize Risk, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • The URO Challenge and the Impact of Medical Marijuana, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 29, 2020
    • Double Play: What Happens When Your Claim Crosses Multiple States?, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • “Is Paying Temporary Total Disability Benefits Still an Admission of Liability In New Jersey Workers’ Compensation?,” Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2014
    • “Can "Excess" Mean Less? A Broader Interpretation in Cardiovascular Injuries,” Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2011
    • "Additional Question To Ask Before Paying Temporary Disability Benefits In New Jersey Even If Petitioner Is Disabled From The Work Injury," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2010
    • "Be Careful Using the 'We Are Not The Last Employer' Defense," Defense Digest, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2009, and New Jersey Self-Insurers Association Newsletter, 2009-10

Results

View all

Dismissals on the Rise! Our New Jersey Workers’ Compensation attorneys are successful in precluding litigation

Lela Eke received a Dismiss Without Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution, after filing a Motion to Dismiss in response to numerous discovery requests that remained unanswered. At the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel was unable to provide an explanation for the delay. We argued that keeping the case open to give them more time to respond to our discovery and Motion would be prejudicial against us, and the Court granted our Motion. Jessica Gordon received a dismissal for lack of prosecution in a case where the claim was denied with ongoing request for medical treatment, but there had been no report from the Petitioner to support the request and no demand was made in lieu of litigation. William Murphy successfully obtained an order for dismissal for a claim involving a workplace assault. In the case, the Petitioner alleged injuries to their neck, back, chest, and right hand following an assault at work. After the Petitioner missed multiple independent medical exams scheduled by the employer, we filed a motion to dismiss this claim for lack of prosecution. The judge of compensation granted the motion. Rachel Ramsay-Lowe was successful in defending a case where the Petitioner was not complying with discovery requests and did not appear for Respondent’s permanency evaluation. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and the Court entered the dismissal Order. Kristy Salvitti was successful in obtaining an Order for Dismissal where the  Petitioner had filed a Reopener of a Clam Petition relative to a prior permanency award arguing that disability to his right shoulder, thoracic and lumbar spine had increased to permanent and total disability. If successful, Petitioner would receive lifetime related medical treatment and 450 weeks to life of his temporary total disability rate.  However, following oral argument that Petitioner failed to timely prosecute the claim, the Reopener Petitioner was dismissed.

Thought Leadership

View all

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Three times is the charm. The Appellate Court again addresses the abuse of workers’ compensation judges’ discretion in awarding fees, costs and penalties.

January 1, 2023

Typically, not many workers’ compensation Superior Court or Supreme Court decisions come down each month. On average, there is one case each month that New Jersey practitioners need to read. So when three cases—albeit all unpublished cases and, therefore, not binding—come out within the year addressing judges abusing their discretion, it certainly sends a message. You may recall in earlier issues of this publication we alerted you to the case of Ripp v. County of Hudson, No. A-2972-20 (App. Div. Jun. 3, 2022), where the Appellate Court found that the judge erred in applying N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 and was mistaken in the exercise of discretion in assessing additional fees and penalties for a late payment of an award of disability. Then there was Saiti v. Garden Homes, No. A-1328-20 (App. Div. Oct. 11, 2022), when the Appellate Court found an abuse of the judge’s discretion in entering an order for sanctions without permitting defense counsel to be heard to explain why a settlement payment was delayed to determine if the delay was unreasonable.  Now, just days before their holiday recess, the Appellate Court issued an opinion finding that one judge’s “awards cannot stand.” In Garzon v. Morris County Golf Club, the court appears to be so appalled by the abuse of discretion and the lack of any analysis in support of the fees, costs, and penalties that it directed the case to be sent to a different workers’ compensation judge on remand. Petitioners’ attorneys undoubtedly will be concerned with this decision as it details and points out that having the discretion to award fees up to a 20%, whether it be on medical and temporary benefits or permanency benefits, that authority “is not unbridled” and “cautioned against a reflexive application of a twenty percent award without a full analysis.” The Appellate Division highlighted that, rather than sending the respondent a message, as petitioner’s counsel requested in assessing fees/cost, workers’ compensation judges should be analyzing whether the petitioner’s attorney’s work on the claim justify those fees. While the court does concede that “the amount of the award is a factor to be considered,” it went on to explain that it has “limited significance in comparison to the more important factors including the nature and extent of the services and the responsibility involved.”   What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Special Workers' Compensation Alert - New Jersey

April 13, 2021

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision today in Hager v. M&K Construction. The decision affirms a lower court ruling requiring an employer to reimburse a petitioner for the costs of medical marijuana prescribed as treatment for a work injury. The court shot down all arguments and found the following: Medical marijuana is a reasonable and necessary treatment under the New Jersey workers' compensation statute; There is no preemption under the Supremacy Clause as there is no positive conflict between the New Jersey’s Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act and the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA); Employers do not face a credible threat of federal prosecution for either aiding, abetting or conspiracy; Congress has deprioritized prosecution for possession of medical marijuana under the most recent federal Appropriations Act by prohibiting the Department of Justice from using allocated funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws; and  Workers' compensation is not a “private health insurer” under the reimbursement exception (N.J.S.A 34:6I-14).  This decision marks the second state Supreme Court to address the preemption argument. In Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2018 ME 77 (2018), Maine’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that to comply with a court order to reimburse for medical marijuana would be to engage in criminal “aiding and abetting” conduct under the CSA as Twin Rivers Paper Co. would knowingly be subsidizing Bourgoin’s purchase of marijuana. Now that there are conflicting state Supreme Courts, could the next question be, “Will the U.S. Supreme Court weigh in?”    What's Hot in Workers' Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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. 

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. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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.

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.

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

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.