.

Shannon Fellin

Shareholder

SPFellin@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Shannon Fellin

Shannon concentrates her practice exclusively in workers' compensation, representing trucking companies, restaurants, construction companies, candy manufacturers, boroughs/municipalities, colleges, hospitals, agricultural businesses, distribution centers and staffing agencies in all manner of matters related to workers' compensation. She takes a hands-on approach to working with clients, actively engaging them in an open dialogue regarding topical issues relevant to their business. Shannon works closely with employers to develop policies and procedures to reduce workers' compensation exposure and to educate them on the Workers' Compensation Act.

Shannon also devotes a portion of her practice to representing boroughs and municipalities. She works together with their solicitors and actuaries to coordinate case strategy and to reach the best outcome for the employer.

In recognition of her exemplary work as a defense attorney, Shannon was recognized as Pennsylvania's "Lawyer of the Year" for Workers' Compensation Law - Employers in Harrisburg for 2022 and 2024. To read more about this honor, click here. 

Shannon graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Delaware, where she was also admitted to the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. In 1996, she received her juris doctor from The Dickinson School of Law. Following law school, Shannon served as a law clerk for several Workers' Compensation Judges in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, she was an associate attorney litigating workers' compensation and social security cases.

    • Penn State Dickinson Law (J.D., 1996)
    • University of Delaware (B.A., cum laude, 1992)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, "Lawyer of the Year," Harrisburg Workers' Compensation Law – Employers (2022, 2024)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers (2009-2026)
    • Best Lawyers, Central Penn Business Journal (2015)
    • Dauphin County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Workers' Compensation Bench and Bar Best Practices 2023, Pennsylvania Bar Association, April 27, 2023
    • What Do You Want From Your Defense Attorney?, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 18, 2018
    • Best Practices to Avoid Common Workers' Compensation Mistakes, Lorman Education Services webinar, June 29, 2017
    • Back on the Job! Returning Injured Workers To Gainful Employment, Human Resource Professionals of Central Pennsylvania Fall Conference, October 27, 2015
    • Top Mistakes in Workers' Compensation, Susquehanna Human Resource Management Association, January 20, 2015
    • Impact of Positive Drug Results on Workers' Compensation Cases, Keystone Case Management, April 17, 2013
    •  A Work Injury from A to Z, Keystone Case Management, April 4, 2012
    • Workers' Compensation from an Employer's Perspective, Susquehanna Human Resources Management Association, Lewisburg, PA, March 20, 2012
    • PA Forms, Petitions and Case law, Sedgwick CMS, July 7, 2011
    • Workers' Compensation and the Employer, Marshall Dennehey workshop, April 30, 2010
    • Case Law Updates and Use of Vocational Testimony in Workers' Compensation Cases, Coventry, September 30, 2008
    • Top Ten Mistakes Made by Adjusters, School Claims Services, December 7, 2007
    • Legal Updates, Cambridge, September 19, 2007
    • WC Skit and Case Updates, PMA Lehigh Valley and Harrisburg, March 29, 2007
    • Employment Law & Workers' Compensation Update, MD Employment Law Seminar at Hershey Antique Car Museum, July 28, 2006
    • Workers' Compensation 101, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, June 15, 2006
    • Subrogation, Credits and Offsets, Murray Insurance, February 16, 2006
    • Legal Updates (PA), Gallagher Bassett, January 11, 2006
    • Trends in Pennsylvania Law, Sedgwick CMS, October 28, 2005
    • Judge's Unplugged, moderator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation Seminar, May 20, 2005
    • Case Law Updates, Liberty Mututal, July 15, 2005
    • Case Law Updates, Liberty Mutual, July 23, 2004
    • PA Forms, Petitions and Appeals, Sedgwick CMS, March 19, 2004
    • Case Law Updates, School Claims Services, June 13, 2003
    • “Quasi Expansion of Employers’ Premises by Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2020
    • “Claimant’s Counsel Must Refund Erroneously Granted Attorneys’ Fees,” Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017
    • "Controlling Medical Costs in PA Workers' Compensation Claims," PRIME Watch, the PennPRIME Liability and Workers' Compensation Trust Newsletter, Fall 2014
    • "How Employers Can Assist With the Mediation Process," Prime Watch Newsletter, Summer 2013
    • "Avoid Post-Settlement Surprises by Carefully Drafting Settlement Documents," Defense Digest, Volume 19, No. 2, June 2013
    • "How Employers Can Assist in the Investigation and Defense of Workers’ Compensation Claims," Prime Watch Newsletter, Fall 2012
    • "Notice This: the Commonwealth Court Relaxes the Requirements for the Notice of Ability to Return to Work Form (LIBC-757)," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2010

Thought Leadership

View all

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Availability of Direct Deposit for Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement

January 23, 2025

The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation is now offering direct deposit (electronic transfer) of Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement checks. To use this option, you must be a registered Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vendor.  The Bureau has provided the linked guide to set up direct deposit. All vendor registration instructions and forms can be found by clicking here: Office of Budget Website, then navigating to the “Popular Topics” section. Select the “Find Vendor Registration, Information, and Tools” tile, and click on the “Direct Deposit and E-Remittance” button. Select the appropriate link, based on the first digit of your vendor number. If you do not have a vendor number, you should follow the link on the page to register for a “Non-Procurement” vendor number. You can also sign up for E-Remittance from this page, which is strongly recommended as it will provide you with an email notification up to three days in advance of a direct deposit payment to your vendor record.  Please contact any of our Pennsylvania workers' compensation attorneys if you have any questions.    What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert – January 23, 2025, 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, 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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert

January 10, 2024

In Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias (WCAB), 1039 C.D. 2021, filed November 14, 2023, a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that claimants are entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket payments for cannabidiol (CBD oil), as it is both a medicine and supply under the Workers’ Compensation Act, without requiring submission of billing forms.   On behalf of the carrier, an appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 14, 2023. The carrier presented four questions for review:    1.    Does CBD oil fall under the “medical services” or “medicine and supplies” language of Section 306(f.)?;  2.    Are employers required to reimburse claimants for health food store purchases of CBD oil without any supporting documents, medical records, HCFA forms or prescriptions?;  3.    Does Section 306(f.1) mandate direct payment to a claimant for out-of-pocket expenses for “medicine and supplies” without submission of any supporting medical records, HCFA forms or prescriptions?; and  4.    Do the cost containment regulations apply to a claimant’s purchase of dietary supplemental or CBD oil?    Of note: This type of appeal is discretionary. According to our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepts approximately five percent of the appeal requests it receives. It typically takes four to six months for the court to decide if an appeal will be accepted. Marshall Dennehey will continue to monitor this appeal and provide updates as available.      What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp – Special PA Alert – January 10, 2024, 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, 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.

News

View all

Events

View all

Conference

25th Annual Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Conference

May 28-29, 2026

Hershey, PA

Kacey C. Wiedt, Shannon Fellin, and Perry D. Merlo

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Thought Leadership

State of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

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. 

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent