.

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 (2009-2027)
    • 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

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.

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.

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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. 

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.

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. 

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