NEWS

Please join us in welcoming shareholder Katherine E. Bavoso to the firm in our Harrisburg office. Katie brings 20 years of experience in defending employers, insurance carriers and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation claims, working together with her clients to achieve their desired result. Katie can be reached at 717-651-3538 or kebavoso@mdwcg.com.

The following attorneys from our Workers’ Compensation Department were named 2023 The Best Lawyers in America© - Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers:

• Daniel Deitrick (Pittsburgh, PA)
• Shannon Fellin (Harrisburg, PA)
• Keri Morris-Johnston (Wilmington, DE)
• Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA)
• Michael Sebastian (Scranton, PA)
• Francis Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA)

Michele Punturi’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “In Court: What’s New on the Medical Marijuana Front for Workers’ Compensation” was published by Risk & Insurance on August 8, 2022. You can read this article here: https://riskandinsurance.com/in-court-whats-new-on-the-medical-marijuana-front-for-workers-compensation/.

Frank Wickersham’s (King of Prussia, PA) article “Back to the Future: A Post-’Protz’ Primer on Pre-’Protz’ Law” was published by The Legal Intelligencer on August 11, 2022. You can read the article here: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/back-future-post-%E2%80%99protz%E2%80%99-primer-pre-%E2%80%99protz%E2%80%99-law.

RESULTS*

Angela DeMary (Mt. Laurel, NJ) and William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) successfully obtained a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and coverage for an occupational accident policy carrier. The petitioner filed a claim petition alleging employment with a trucking company. However, the petitioner had previously obtained an occupational accident policy in the role of an independent contractor. When filing the workers’ compensation petition, counsel for the petitioner erroneously named the occupational accident policy carrier as the carrier for the trucking company. Although it would appear clear that jurisdiction and coverage do not exist in such cases, most times it is a lengthy process to have such matters addressed by the court and ultimately dismissed. However, Angela and Bill were successful in obtaining the dismissal and ceasing further unnecessary financial costs.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) defended a Berks County mushroom facility in a very high-exposure alleged amputation/loss-of-leg case. The claimant sustained a severe laceration and tissue loss to one of his legs while inappropriately performing his job duties. Work was made available to the claimant after the injury, which he refused. The claimant then alleged that he lost his leg for all intents and purposes and demanded the court award specific loss benefits. Tony defended this case on factual and medical grounds. The court held that the claimant did not lose his leg and no specific loss benefits were awarded. Further, the court suspended indemnity benefits for the claimant’s failure to accept the job offer made to him after the injury. Significant exposure was totally eliminated.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on a 10-year-old back claim with open medical liability. The claimant had been treating with excessive use of narcotic medication. An orthopedic expert undertook an examination and found the claimant fully recovered from the work injury and noted that the use of narcotic medication was unrelated to the injury. During the litigation, the claimant presented a medical expert who opined he was still suffering from the work injury. On cross examination, the expert admitted that he was aware his treatment was made the subject of a utilization review and found unreasonable and unnecessary. He further admitted his intent to continue the claimant on narcotic medication, despite the UR Determination, and charge the insurer for his services. Additionally, he admitted to moving the claimant to other doctors in his office who were not subject to the UR Decision as a means of continuing the treatment cycle. The court found the claimant’s medical expert not to hold a scintilla of credibility. The court then terminated the claimant’s benefits.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended a claimant’s appeal of a judge’s decision which terminated benefits based on a full recovery after a horrific trucking accident. The claimant’s attorney argued to the Appeal Board that his litigation costs should have been awarded since the claimant was successful in amending the nature of injury during the litigation and, therefore, earned reimbursement of costs. Tony argued, and the Board agreed, that the amendment to the nature of injury was stipulated to before the termination petition was prosecuted and no fees or costs were due and owing.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) won a favorable decision from the District Director on a Federal Black Lung claim. The claimant had filed an application for benefits alleging 20+ years of coal mine employment and exposure to coal dust. The District Director found that the claimant had only proven four years of qualifying coal mining employment. The District Director also found that the claimant was unable to prove that he had developed coal workers’ pneumoconiosis or a totally disabling respiratory impairment.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) won a favorable decision from an Administrative Law Judge on a Federal Black Lung claim. The judge credited the claimant with 11 years of qualifying coal mining employment, but found that the claimant had failed to prove a totally disabling respiratory impairment and, therefore, denied the claim. Judd presented evidence from our medical expert that the claimant did not contract coal workers’ pneumoconiosis as the result of his work in the coal mines and that he was not disabled by a respiratory impairment. The judge addressed the issue of total respiratory disability first and found that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof with pulmonary function study, arterial blood gas study and medical opinion evidence. The judge credited the opinions of our medical expert over those of both of the claimant’s expert and the independent expert retained by the Department of Labor. The judge found no respiratory disability and, therefore, denied the claim.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 26, No. 9, September 2022 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 © 2022 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.}