.

Robin M. Romano

Shareholder

RMRomano@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Robin M. Romano

As a member of the Workers' Compensation Department, Robin focuses her practice on the defense of workers' compensation matters. She represents self-insureds, including temporary employment agencies, warehouses, hospitals and businesses, as well as major insurance carriers and third-party administrators.

Robin partners with employers, brokers and third-party administrators, placing a high priority on consistent communication to best serve the interests of all parties. She tailors her results-driven approach to a client's specific needs, whether it involves litigating a case to conclusion or working toward an early resolution, and she is always mindful of their bottom line. 

With more than 35 years of experience practicing exclusively in workers' compensation in the Philadelphia area, Robin has earned a favorable reputation among her peers, judges and the claimant's bar. 

Robin is a graduate of Dickinson College, and she received her juris doctor from T.C. Williams School of Law in Richmond, Virginia. She is the former vice president and original master of the Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers' Compensation American Inn of Court, and she served as a past co-chair for the Workers' Compensation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association. Outside of the office, Robin enjoys saber fencing, and can often be found bouting at her fencing club or competing at tournaments.

    • University of Richmond School of Law (J.D., 1986)
    • Dickinson College (B.A., cum laude, 1983)
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers (2026)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association - Workers' Compensation Section, former co-chair; Arts Committee, member
    • Civility in Practice, Pennsylvania Bar Association's Workers' Comp Fall Section Meeting, Hershey, PA, September 12, 2025
    • How to Deal With Difficult Litigants, Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation webinar, May 11, 2023
    • Considerations Surrounding a Discharge, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Hot Topics in Workers' Comp and Litigation Trends, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, PA, September 20, 2022
    • Emotional Intelligence: The Art of Friendly Persuasion, Workers' Compensation Compliance Crusher: 2021 Update on Hot Topics in Workers' Compensation Practice, Philadelphia Bar Association, August 20, 2021
    • Coverage Issues, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • The Meat and Potatoes of Affirmative Defenses, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, April 3, 2017
    • Understanding Medical Records, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2016
    • Double Play: What Happens When Your Claim Crosses Multiple States?, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • From Kachinski to Phoenixville Hospital: Proving Earning Capacity in the Modern Era, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 30, 2014
    • From Kachinski to Phoenixville Hospital: Proving Earning Capacity in the Modern Era, Philadelphia Bar Association, July 11, 2014
    • How to Succeed at Mediations Without Really Trying, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, Philadelphia, PA, November 30, 2012 
    • Co-presenter regarding the use of panel physicians in the workers' compensation arena, Teach and Treat Self-Insured Seminar at Marshall Dennehey, October 21, 2010 
    • Co-presenter at the Philadelphia Chapter of Occupational Medicine Nurses regarding dissecting medical records, March 24, 2010 
    • Presenter at Nationwide in-house seminar regarding Medicare fraud, December 10, 2009 
    • Co-presenter at SRS in-house seminar regarding the Interplan between FMLA, ADA and Workers' Compensation, October 5, 2001 
    • "For The Record: Hunt Down Medical Files to Clarify Your Defense Strategy," CLM Magazine, June 2018
    • "Immunity from Testimony Under the Workers’ Compensation Act," Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2015
    • "Voluntary Retirement Cases: an Evolving Burden of Proof," Pennsylvania Self-Insurer's Association Newsletter, November 2011; Defense Digest, March 2011
    • "An Overview on the Compensability of Psychiatric Injuries," Counterpoint, October 1995 
    • "Ex parte Contact With a Treating Physician," Counterpoint, July 1993 
    • "Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Under the Workers' Compensation Act," Counterpoint, July 1992 

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

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

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.

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

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. 

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.