.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

WHAT’S HOT IN WORKERS’ COMP - NEWS AND RESULTS*

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 7, July 2023

July 1, 2023

NEWS

Benjamin Durstein and Keri Morris-Johnston (Wilmington) were featured speakers at the Workers’ Compensation Seminar 2023, co-hosted by the Delaware State Bar Association and Industrial Accident Board. Ben was a panelist for “Ethics and the Duty to the Tribunal and Opposing Counsel,” while Keri participated as part of a panel discussing “The Legal Implications of Successive Injuries.”
 
Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh) has been elected by his peers to a second term on the Council of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section. The committee supports the resolution of problems that are identified within the practice of workers’ compensation via interaction with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and its administrative personnel.
 

 

RESULTS*

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) successfully defended a claim petition, in part. The judge granted the claimant’s claim petition, finding that she suffered a work-related injury on January 7, 2022, in the nature of a contusion to the right wrist and right elbow. However, the judge specifically found that the July 8, 2022, surgery performed on the claimant’s right elbow was not related to the work injury and that claimant was only disabled due to the work injury from February 11, 2022 to July 20, 2022, and fully recovered from her work-related injury as of July 20, 2022. The claimant’s benefits were terminated as of that date. In reaching his decision, the judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, Dr. Talsania, over the opinions of the claimant’s medical expert, Dr. Bontempo. The judge also found the claimant’s testimony to only be credible, in part. He noted that the claimant’s initial complaints were about breathing issues and that she did not advise her employer of the different injuries that she allegedly sustained. With regard to the medical experts, the judge noted that Dr. Talsania credibly explained how the mechanism of injury alleged by the claimant would be physically impossible to cause lateral epicondylitis. The judge credited the opinions of Dr. Talsania, that the force needed to cause a traumatic lateral epicondylitis would need to be so significant that the claimant would have sustained severe bruising, swelling and immediate pain. None of that occurred in this case. The claimant’s medical records were noted as inconsistent with the mechanism of injury as the claimant described and claimant’s medical expert, Dr. Bontempo, had an incomplete knowledge of the claimant’s history and mechanism of injury. Further, claimant’s expert failed to explain the mechanics of how the claimant’s fall would have caused a traumatic injury to the lateral epicondyle. The judge also credited the employer’s witness testimony that Judd presented, specifically finding credible the testimony that the claimant joked about the incident and did not appear to be injured. The testimony of the employer’s witness was accepted as credible by the judge.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) successfully argued that the claimant’s average weekly wage was much lower than the claimant alleged. The claimant was a part-time pizza delivery driver who alleged he was paid $600 per week in cash by the employer and earned $800–$900 per week in additional unreported tips. The employer asserted that the claimant was paid $150–$200 per week in wages and tips. The judge found in our favor and determined the average weekly wage was only $144. 

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) successfully argued against a penalty for late payment of attorney’s fees. The judge granted the penalty petition but awarded zero in penalties.

Kristopher Starr (Wilmington) successfully defended a petition for cervical spine surgery and indemnity benefits. The claimant was in his mid-70s and had years of degenerative cervical spine issues and a compensable shoulder injury. His petition for additional compensation was denied as was the cervical spine surgery. Our termination petition was granted because the claimant was determined to be medically employable. The claimant’s temporary total disability was terminated as of the date of the Board’s decision. Kris presented a Labor Market Survey as to the issue of earning capacity, which was accepted. Partial disability was denied. As to the weight of evidence, our defense medical expert’s examination was credited as was Kris’s cross examination of the claimant and his spine surgeon. 

Kristopher Starr (Wilmington) successfully defended a motion to compel payment of disability benefits. Claimant’s counsel filed a this motion very late after the Board’s decision denying surgery and ongoing benefits. The motion was argued before the Board, and Kris argued it be denied on the basis of failure to properly move for re-argument or appeal within the statutory time periods. The Board agreed with Kris and denied the motion. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 7, July 2023, 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 © 2023 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

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.