.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2025

April 1, 2025

NEWS

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars

We are pleased to announce that Kiara Hartwell and Adam Huber (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) have been selected to the 2025 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. 

 

RESULTS*

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The Worker’s Compensation Judge granted the Review and Termination Petitions and denied the claimant’s Review Petition. The claimant fell approximately 20 feet from a ladder while climbing off a roof. He landed on his feet and sustained bilateral calcaneal fractures. The employer issued a Notice of Compensation Payable accepting bilateral ankle fractures. In his Termination Petition, Michael alleged a full recovery and filed the Review Petition to amend the description of injury to bilateral calcaneal fractures instead of bilateral ankle fractures. The claimant, too, filed a Review Petition to amend the description of injury to include traumatic neuropathic pain secondary to bilateral calcaneal fractures, lumbar spine strain, lumbar spine disc injury and bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. The workers’ compensation judge found the defense expert more credible than the claimant’s expert. 

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE):

  • The Industrial Accident Board rejected the claimant’s allegation that she sustained a 40% permanent impairment to the left arm caused by complex regional pain syndrome. The claimant’s expert used the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment to arrive at 40%. Instead, the Board accepted the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, who relied upon the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides. The Board concluded that the appropriate rating was 13% to the left upper extremity.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a claimant who tripped at work and sustained an injury to the knee. The claimant’s body habitus was one of morbid obesity prior to the injury. Expert medical evidence was presented demonstrating the work injury was limited to a contusion and that the significant degeneration in the knee was pre-existing and due to wear and tear related to morbid obesity. The court found the expert’s opinion of full recovery to be credible and limited the injury to a knee contusion which fully resolved, resulting in a complete defense verdict.
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant who was helping to lift a 400-pound slab when she felt her shoulder “pop.” After vigorous cross examination, the claimant admitted that she provided notice 122 days after the date of injury (which was untimely by the letter of the law). She then asserted that her injury was “repetitive trauma” and argued that each day she worked after the original incident caused a new injury. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical experts dispelled her theory of compensability. The court dismissed the Claim Petition on the bases of a violation of the notice provisions of the Act and on the lack of credibility of the medical experts presented. A complete defense verdict on all counts. 
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant, who slipped and fell down a flight of concrete stairs and alleged multiple injuries to body parts, from head to toe. The employer’s panel doctor found the work injuries limited to the claimant’s extremities. The claimant was referred by his attorney to a pain specialist who opined significant injuries to multiple body parts. However, claimant’s a expert was forced to admit that he has been practicing medicine for less than two years and only offered opinions about neck and back injuries—nothing else. The claimant alleged serious disc herniation injuries in the neck and back and still pursued other body part injuries in the litigation with no additional expert evidence. The employer presented an orthopedic surgeon who found no injuries on the date of his evaluation and opined that the claimant fully healed from any injuries he may have sustained. The court found only minor strains to the neck and back with a full and complete recovery (and no further benefits due). Allegations of multiple disc herniation injuries were dismissed as unrelated.
  • Successfully prosecuted a Suspension Petition involving a claimant who was released to return to work with restrictions and ultimately to full duty. She failed to return to her pre-injury position upon release to full duty, but she did return to alternate employment. Any wage loss was argued to be unrelated to the work injury since the pre-injury job was open and available. The court granted a suspension of benefits on this basis, resulting in a full defense verdict. 
  • Successfully prosecuted a third level appeal regarding Medicare conditional payments after an auto accident injury. This appeal centered on the federal government’s contractor who continually denied the company’s initial level appeals to limit conditional payment recoupment based on policy exhaustion. The court found the evidence submitted supported the auto policy at issue, the payments made on the basis of the policy and exhaustion of the policy after paying numerous medical bills. The government sought additional conditional payments and after a vociferous oral argument, the court found no additional conditional payments were due. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Modification Petition, establishing a significant reduction in dependent benefits as the claimant’s daughter was over 18 and was not enrolled as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, pursuant to § 307 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Based upon documentary evidence and a sound legal argument, the judge granted the decrease in weekly benefits and awarded a 100% credit against future benefits for the employer to recoup the overpayment that occurred beginning in 2023.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The workers’ compensation judge granted Petitions for Review of Utilization Review Determinations, finding the treatment by three of the claimant’s medical providers to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The treatments found unreasonable and unnecessary included electrical stimulation, chiropractic manipulation, PRP injections, Botox injections, pain patches, trigger point injections and office visits. 
  • The judge granted a Petition to Terminate benefits as the judge found the opinions of our medical expert competent and credible and terminated benefits as of the date of the IME. 
  • The workers’ compensation judge granted a Termination Petition and denied the claimant’s Review/Reinstatement Petition. The judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, that the claimant was fully recovered from his accepted low back strain and right shoulder strain and that surgery performed on the claimant’s shoulder was not related to the work injury. He also found the claimant’s own testimony to be inconsistent and not credible.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 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.

Firm Highlights

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

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

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. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.