.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Limits 120‑Day Notice Requirement for Owner-Employees

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 2026

May 1, 2026

by Francis X. Wickersham

Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. David Heater( WCAB); No. 103 MAP 2024; decided March 26, 2026; by Chief Justice Todd.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether an injured worker, who was a sole proprietor, must give notice of his work injury under Section 311 of the Act, to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier within 120 days in order to comply with the notice provisions of the Act. 

In the underlying case, the claimant was the sole owner and employee of his general contracting business. On September 28, 2025, while performing roof repairs, he allegedly fell from a ladder and fractured his neck, requiring immediate surgery.  The claimant applied for workers’ compensation benefits from his company’s carrier. The insurer issued a Notice of Workers’ Compensation Denial (NCD), denying the claim on the basis that the claimant was actually injured when attempting to perform a back flip on break, and on the basis that he did not give notice of his injury within 120 days under Sections 311-313 of the Act.  After the denial was issued, the claimant filed a claim petition for the injury. 

The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the claim petition, finding that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to his insurer, as required by Section 311. The WCJ’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board and by the Commonwealth Court.

The Supreme Court, however, after granting the claimant’s request to hear an appeal, reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court.  The Court noted that although Section 311 does not define the term employer, definitions of that term are contained in Section 401, which includes an insurer, and Section 103, which does not.  The Court held that the plain language of Section 311 controlled, and does not require an injured claimant who is the sole employee and owner of a business to notify an insurer of a work related injury within 120 days to be eligible for compensation. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.