.

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

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

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. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

News

Jeremy J. Zacharias Elected to the Executive Committee of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.