Thought Leadership

RESULTS*

Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) was successful in having her motion for indemnification granted. Our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by the statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable, providing medical and indemnity benefits and reaching a settlement compromise with the injured worker. Linda filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing was held, where Linda presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted her motion.

William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) was successful in having our client, a health care provider, dismissed, with prejudice, in a dependency claim. This claim was filed on behalf of an emergency room physician who passed away on March 31, 2020, due to the COVID-19 virus. Similar claims  were filed against other hospitals and physicians groups where the emergency room physician worked prior to his death. The initial demand was $1.75 million, to be split between the multiple employers. This was subsequently lowered to $300,000. Bill raised the defense of the statute of limitations, pointing out that the claim petition against our client was filed over two years after Dr. Gabrin’s death, clearly outside the statute of limitations. The matter was eventually settled, with the other health care employers paying a total of $150,000. The claim against our client was dismissed, with prejudice, with no monies paid.

William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) was successful in having his Motion to Dismiss granted. The medical provider who filed the claim was seeking payment of $104,688.13 for treatment performed following a work-related injury. A Motion to Dismiss the claim was filed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there are insufficient contacts with the State of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The Judge agreed with our argument and signed the order dismissing this case.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received a favorable decision finding that our client had a valid subrogation lien in the amount of $82,266.60 which the claimant and her third-party attorney had failed to honor. The workers’ compensation judge directed repayment of the employer’s automatic and absolute subrogation lien in the total amount requested.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

NEWS

Robin Romano (Philadelphia, PA) was a co-presenter at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Workers’ Comp Fall Section Meeting in Hershey, PA. During her presentation, “Civility in Practice,” Robin discussed the importance of treating all parties involved in litigation with respect, professionalism and fairness to promote effective communication and foster trust and ultimately lead to more efficient and just outcomes in the claims process. The discussion explored practical strategies for fostering civility across all roles in the system, challenges to maintaining professionalism under pressure, and tools for improving communication and collaboration.

Heather Carbone and Linda Farrell (both in Jacksonville, FL) were presenters for The Florida Bar’s Workers’ Compensation Section webinar on “Florida's New Rules of Civil Procedure and Impact on Workers' Compensation Claims.” Heather and Linda discussed the interplay between the new Florida Rules of Civil Procedure involving discovery and the Rules of Procedure for Workers’ Compensation Adjudications, Chapter 60Q-6. The webinar specifically addressed the updated Rule 1.280 and how it may be applied to workers’ compensation cases and/or civil cases that have an impact on workers’ compensation claims. They also discussed proportionality and what mechanisms should be used to apply the new discovery rule. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 10, October 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.}