RESULTS
Lela Eke (Roseland) secured a significant victory in a catastrophic injury workers’ compensation matter involving an above-knee amputation and approximately $2 million in past medical bills. After more than a year of litigation over Motions for Medical and Temporary Benefits and a subsequent Motion to Compel/Payment of Bills, the claimant sought an order requiring payment of medical expenses for which certain providers had intervened and were pursuing their own claims through separate counsel. We argued that the intervenors’ bills were not properly before the court and should not be included in the MMT Order. The court agreed, finding that the bills were outside the scope of the MMT Order and further determining that the employer had complied with the other applicable requirements. As a result, the claimant’s counsel was not entitled to a potential 25% fee on the approximately $2 million in intervenors’ medical bills, preserving up to approximately $500,000 in potential savings. The ruling also preserved the client’s ability to negotiate the outstanding medical bills rather than requiring their immediate payment.
Andrew Maffett (Harrisburg) obtained a favorable result in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter. The matter involved the employer’s petitions to suspend and terminate workers’ compensation benefits arising from a July 22, 2024 work injury. With respect to the suspension petition, the employer presented fact-witness testimony that modified-duty work was available within the claimant’s treating physician’s restrictions. The judge credited that testimony and granted the suspension petition effective May 19, 2025. With respect to the termination petition, the employer presented testimony from an expert that the claimant had fully recovered from the work injury. The judge credited that testimony and granted the termination petition effective June 5, 2025. As a result, the employer was permitted to discontinue indemnity and medical benefits related to the July 22, 2024 injury and pursue supersedeas fund reimbursement for wage loss and medical benefits paid during the litigation.
Perry Merlo (Harrisburg) secured a favorable decision in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter involving a dispute over wage-loss benefits. The parties stipulated that the claimant had sustained a work injury but left unresolved whether he was entitled to indemnity benefits for the period from June 2, 2025, through November 17, 2025. The claimant testified that the employer had failed to accommodate his work restrictions during that time. In response, we presented testimony from an employer fact witness establishing that the claimant had been provided work within his restrictions without any loss of wages. The judge credited the employer’s witness over the claimant and denied the claim for approximately five months of wage-loss benefits, resulting in a favorable decision for the employer.
William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a favorable resolution in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter pending in Newark. The claim involved alleged injuries to the lower back, bilateral knees, and bilateral hands. We filed a motion seeking dismissal as to the carrier, arguing that coverage was not in effect on the date of the alleged accident. The judge granted the motion and entered an order dismissing the carrier from the case.
William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a dismissal in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter. The claim involved allegations of occupational exposure resulting in orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities. After numerous delays by the claimant’s counsel in prosecuting the matter, we successfully obtained a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal resulted in a complete resolution of the claim.
William Murphy (Roseland) successfully dismissed a New Jersey workers’ compensation claim involving allegations of a decade-long occupational exposure. The claimant alleged orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities arising from the exposure. After the claimant’s counsel failed to take the necessary steps to advance the matter, we pursued dismissal for lack of prosecution. The court granted the request, bringing the claim to a complete and favorable conclusion.
William Murphy (Roseland) successfully secured the dismissal with prejudice of two New Jersey workers’ compensation medical provider applications seeking a combined $71,534.47. The applications arose from medical treatment allegedly related to a September 11, 2021 workplace injury. We challenged the claims on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the underlying accident occurred in New York and lacked a sufficient connection to New Jersey. Despite the two matters being assigned to different judges of compensation, both judges agreed with the jurisdictional argument and entered orders dismissing the respective claims with prejudice on July 23 and 24, 2026. The result eliminated $71,534.47 in claimed exposure.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict in a workers' compensation case in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in the form of a bilateral knee strain during the course and scope of employment. She continued to treat for these injuries without cessation. She originally refused a job offer to return to work and continued treatment. A board-certified orthopedic surgeon who specializes in knee injuries examined her and found that despite the varied and somewhat bizarre subjective pain complaints, there were no objective corroborative findings to support ongoing injury or disability. This medical expert testimony was proffered and accepted by the court as credible, resulting in a full defense verdict.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 71-year-old certified nursing assistant who suffered a work injury to the lumbar spine with a pre-existing back condition, the latter of which the claimant denied. The defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in surgical treatment of spinal injuries, examined the claimant and his opinions were found competent, credible and persuasive supporting a full recovery based upon a comprehensive physical examination, review of medical records and x-rays of the lumbar spine as well as three MRIs of the lumbar spine in 2023, 2024 and 2025 revealing no post-traumatic findings nor an aggravation of her pre-existing lumbar condition. Michele demonstrated claimant’s expert lacked the expertise and experience and his focus was on pain management. The judge rejected claimant’s medical expert as not credible even though he attempted to support an aggravation of her underlying degenerative disc disease. The judge further rejected claimant’s testimony given her efforts to unequivocally deny prior back injury going as far as to say it would be a lie to say she had a prior low back injury despite the medical records that clearly demonstrated prior treatment along with medication for her lumbar spine. Also, the demonstration of her sporadic treatment further supported a lack of credibility as did favorable surveillance showing her active.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
NEWS
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) is speaking at the National Comp conference in Las Vegas in September. He joins a group of panelists to present “Older, Wiser, But Costlier to Heal: What an Aging Workforce Means for Employers and for the Industry,” a discussion focused on the challenges employers face in balancing safety, compliance, and productivity as the workforce continues to age. Judd and his co-presenters will address proactive strategies to reduce workplace risk, support older employees, navigate age-discrimination and workers’ compensation issues, and build a safer, more resilient workforce. For more information, visit National Comp. Conference and Trade Show.
