.

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

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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