.

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

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

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.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Thought Leadership

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.