Thought Leadership

RESULTS*

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Yoder v. McCarthy Construction. This resulted in the court’s unanimous ruling to uphold statutory employer immunity on Pennsylvania construction sites. The six Justices who voted rejected the plaintiff's arguments that such immunity should be overturned as antiquated and should be deemed waivable. Shane Haselbarth (Philadelphia, PA) played a key role in helping John to achieve this outstanding result. Read more about this case in The Legal Intelligencer.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) received a favorable decision that saved our client millions on dollars. The claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging he sustained a left shoulder dislocation, stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome and post-traumatic seizures as a result of a fall at work. After the claimant fell at work and sustained a left shoulder dislocation, he went to the hospital for the dislocation, was treated and discharged. Four days later he sustained a stroke at home. He had multiple surgeries and was hospitalized for four months. He was severely disabled as a result of the stroke and requires full-time care. The claimant initially alleged the stroke was caused by a head injury from the fall at work. He claimed he was bleeding from his nose and mouth and had a laceration to his forehead. Mike was able to show that did not occur by presenting fact witnesses who established the claimant fell off one step, never hit his head, was not bleeding from his head or face, only dislocated his shoulder, and was discharged home without issue. Claimant’s counsel then alleged the claimant’s stroke was related to a spike in his high blood pressure that placed him in a hypertensive crisis, resulting in the stroke. Mike showed that the claimant had unregulated high blood pressure before the work injury and that he was released from the hospital with high blood pressure but not high enough to be in hypertensive crisis. Mike argued the claimant failed to provide a credible explanation as to how his fall at work kept him in a hypertensive crisis for four days resulting in the stroke. The judge agreed with our arguments, finding that the claimant only sustained the agreed upon shoulder dislocation. Therefore, the claimant was awarded one day of wage loss benefits for the shoulder dislocation. The stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome, and post traumatic seizures were denied and dismissed. As the claimant is only 48 years old, his compensation rate would have resulted in $30,000-a-year wage loss benefits; therefore, wage loss for the rest of his life would likely have approximately $1 million. Additionally, the claimant’s medical costs were going to be much higher as he requires round-the-clock care, which over his lifetime would have cost millions. His hospital bills alone were over $1 million, and claimant’s counsel would have argued for home modifications and vehicle modifications. Instead, the claimant will receive a one-day payment of about $88.

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) successfully defended a six-figure workers’ compensation claim in which the claimant alleged back and leg injuries and sought over $60,000 in past wage loss plus ongoing benefits. By collaborating closely with the employer, Ryan preserved and presented key surveillance footage, coupled with compelling medical evidence and strategic cross-examination, to challenge the claimant’s factual and medical assertions. The judge found our case more credible and persuasive, resulting in a complete denial of the claim petition.

Gabrielle Winter (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully argued a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on a medical provider claim petition. The medical provider was seeking $105,688.13. The judge dismissed the case, agreeing with our argument that there was insufficient contact with New Jersey and that the proper jurisdiction was New York. 

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended against a Petition for Joinder of Additional Defendant that sought to place liability on our client as a statutory employer under the Act. The judge found that the original defendants had failed to join the proper party, had failed to prove that our client was a statutory employer, and had failed to prove facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Our client was dismissed from the claim.

Michael Sebastian (Scranton, PA) successfully defended a Claim Petition where the issue was whether the claimant suffered a knee injury that required knee replacement surgery. The claimant testified that on the date of injury he was doing the work of two employees. After work, he went home and started feeling knee pain. The judge summarized the testimony of the claimant and his medical expert, but he did not summarize the defense medical expert. The judge found the claimant not credible since he did not testify to a specific incident that caused the knee pain and he did not provide sufficient testimony to support a repetitive trauma injury. The judge found claimant’s expert not credible to support a finding that the claimant sustained a knee injury, explaining he did not have sufficient information from the claimant and lacked the opportunity to examine the claimant since he did not see him until after the knee replacement surgery was performed. The judge also noted that claimant’s medical expert did not provide any opinion regarding disability. The judge indicated that since the claimant’s evidence was not credible, he did not have to address the defense medical expert’s testimony. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) received a defense verdict on his Termination Petition where the claimant sustained a low back injury when he slipped and fell in an elevator during his employment. The employer had an IME wherein the claimant was pronounced fully recovered from strain injuries. The claimant presented evidence that alleged disc involvement and ongoing radiculopathy. The court found the employer’s expert to be credible as to full recovery based on the finding that no architectural change could be identified between the claimant’s diagnostic studies pre and post injury diagnostic studies. 

Tony was also successful in having a claimant’s indemnity and medical benefits suspended. The claimant sustained a low back injury tending to children during the course and scope of employment. She was set up for various IME appointments, which she refused to attend. A petition to compel her attendance was filed and granted by the court. A new court-ordered IME was scheduled, which the claimant did not attend. A Suspension Petition followed wherein in evidence of the claimant’s recalcitrance was admitted into the record. The court granted the employer’s Suspension Petition and suspended BOTH indemnity and medical benefits.

Tony received a defense verdict on a Claim Petition where the claimant sustained a shoulder injury during the course and scope of employment. The employer brought the claimant back to work to a light-duty driving position that caused a limited loss of wages (for about 1.5 months). They then allowed the claimant to earn his pre-injury wages. The job was so light that the claimant was found sleeping in the truck during work hours and was discharged for cause. After the claimant secured new employment with another company at lower wages, he alleged he was entitled to ongoing partial disability. The subsequent Claim Petition turned on the facts surrounding the discharge as being the real cause for the disability. The business record exception to the hearsay rule was dissected by the court, and the Claim Petition was dismissed based on the employer’s legally admissible fact and medical witness testimony.

In another matter, Tony was successful in having his Termination Petition granted. The claimant sustained a work injury in the form of a head concussion and post concussive syndrome. Ultimately, his treating physician released him to return to work on a partial basis. The claimant refused a subsequent job offer. He continued treating but in a clandestine fashion. He also secured alternative employment. The treating physician then released the claimant to full-duty work. Suspension and Termination Petitions were filed, alleging the claimant refused available work, was working at an alternative job and was fully recovered from the work injury. The claimant’s own treating physician was used in evidence against him. The court granted a full recovery.

Finally, Tony was successful in having a Termination Petition granted on behalf of a university. The claimant sustained a low back and neck injury while lifting trash, and her claim was ultimately accepted as compensable for strain injuries. A Termination Petition was later filed, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from her injuries. The claimant alleged her strain injuries morphed into an aggravation of degenerative changes in her spine. The claimant’s Ivy League-trained orthopedic surgeon was forced to admit on cross exam that there were no structural change between the pre-injury and post-injury MRI’s, leading the judge to the inescapable conclusion that the claimant was fully recovered.

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) was successful in having his petition to terminate the ongoing receipt of temporary partial disability benefits granted on the basis that the claimant had voluntarily removed himself from the workforce. The Industrial Accident Board reasoned that the claimant was able to work in a medium-duty job, jobs were available within his restrictions, he’d conducted a minimal job search since his work release more than a year and a half earlier, and his description of his daily activities was consistent with a person content with a retirement lifestyle rather than someone who intended to continue to work. Accordingly, he was no longer entitled to wage replacement benefits.

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully defended claimant’s Claim and Penalty Petitions by proving the alleged injury occurred much later than claimed. The claimant, a technical operator responsible for shaping and packing cheese, alleged that he suffered a left shoulder tear with internal derangement, requiring surgery, as a result of using a long stick-like tool to dislodge cheese that had gotten stuck in a machine during the production process. The claimant asserted that he provided timely notice of his work-related injury to his supervisor within a few days after the injury occurred. Through cross examination, the claimant admitted that he provided notice of his injury four or five months after the alleged injury occurred. Through employer witness testimony, Kacey was also able to show that, while the claimant did leave early on the day of the alleged injury, the reason was because he was sick, and there was no written documentation to support notice being provided in a timely manner. Through medical expert testimony, Kacey was also able to establish that the claimant’s injury likely occurred on a later date than the one alleged, based upon the medical evidence showing that the bicep did not show any signs of retraction 10 months after the alleged injury date. The workers’ compensation judge found the defendant’s expert testimony more credible than the claimant’s medical expert. The claimant’s Claim Petition seeking, temporary total disability benefits, and his Penalty Petition were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

NEWS

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) joined members of the claimant’s and defense bars, judiciary and the Appeal Board for an in-depth CLE program on the past and future of the Workers’ Compensation Adjudicatory System. In “Legends of Workers’ Compensation: A Look Back and Ahead on the Workers’ Compensation Adjudication System,” hosted by the Philadelphia Bar Association's Workers’ Compensation Section, panelists examined historical transformations in the practice of workers’ compensation, spanning from in-person hearings to modern day hearings and virtual practice. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article, "Compensating the Boys of Fall - College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?" appearing in the October issue of CLM Magazine. The article discusses legal developments over the classification of college athletes as employees and potential impacts on workers' compensation.