.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 30, No. 7, July 2026

July 15, 2026

RESULTS*

Eric Scott Thompson (Wilmington) was successful in a workers’ compensation matter in Delaware. On October 15, 2024, the claimant was injured while performing fire training in a multistory building when he tripped over a fire line, injuring his right knee. The claimant received regular and consistent treatment for the right knee through August 29, 2025, when he presented with left knee complaints for the first time. His treating orthopedist diagnosed a hamstring strain. The claimant was next seen October 15, 2025, with continued left knee complaints, and was referred to a total knee doctor within the practice. He was then diagnosed with a posterior root tear of the medial meniscus. Our expert testified that it was not plausible for a lateral hamstring strain to progress to a meniscal tear in two months. The claimant required a total knee replacement that was ultimately performed in February 2026. In the six months between the time of initial presentation with left knee complaints and the total knee replacement, conservative care consisted of a single injection. Our expert testified that posterior root media meniscal tears can respond to conservative care, and it was not known if it would with the claimant because it was not adequately explored. The Industrial Accident Board agreed with our expert and determined that the claimant failed to meet the burden of establishing more likely than not that the left knee complaints were caused by overloading/overuse as a result of the compensable injury to the right knee. They also agreed that the claimant was able to return to work in a sedentary capacity as opined by his physicians and our expert prior to the left total knee replacement and that there were employment opportunities available within his restrictions and capabilities as presented by the vocational expert. As a result, the claimant is no longer entitled to total disability benefits and will receive partial disability benefits for which he is limited to 300 weeks.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) had a termination petition granted in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case. The petition involved an echocardiography technologist with long-term employment at a local hospital who sustained a right shoulder injury resulting in surgery in January 2024. Following surgery, the claimant was diagnosed with a frozen shoulder and underwent additional surgery in June 2024, with a recommendation for a third surgery. The opinions of the defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, were found credible, persuasive, and competent based upon the extensive history he obtained from the claimant, analysis of the mechanism of injury, and review of records, along with comparison of MRIs from October 2023, February 11, 2024, and January 6, 2025, which failed to reveal any causal relationship other than a strain/sprain of the right shoulder. This evidence supported that the claimant had fully recovered, and was not in need of any ongoing medical treatment and/or restrictions. In particular, despite allegations of injuries beyond a sprain/strain, the defense medical expert identified that those allegations were not consistent with what was found at the time of surgery, and elements of the surgery were to treat a chronic and degenerative condition. Additionally there were no ongoing issues or problems with the subscapularis, which was intact, consistent with the follow-up MRI of February 11, 2024, and the claimant did not have evidence of a frozen shoulder. In fact, the MRIs and mechanism of injury, he opined, did not support any injury causing tendonitis or inflammatory conditions within the bicep tendon. Furthermore, multiple days of surveillance footage demonstrated the claimant’s normal use, with the ability to sweep and shovel snow, operate her vehicle, raise her arms above shoulder level, and use a broom – all without any observable difficulty, which challenged the claimant’s credibility of a disability and further established a lack of causation. As a result of this favorable decision, supersedeas fund reimbursement will be obtained for both wage loss and medical benefits through the supersedeas fund recovery process.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) had a termination petition granted involving a claimant who sustained a lower back injury. He was treated by a physician who immediately referred him for a $6,500 per month steady diet of TENS unit and supplies. The employer filed a termination petition based on a full recovery opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. The claimant continued to treat during the litigation with the electronic supplies. Expert testimony demonstrated that the claimant had no reproducible lower back problems and had fully recovered from the work injury. The court granted  a complete defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) successfully had a termination petition granted by the Berks County Workers’ Compensation Court. The claimant suffered multiple upper extremity injuries which relegated him to light duty paper work. Several years later, the employer was able to retrieve a full recovery opinion on the hand/wrist and shoulder injuries. The claimant presented testimony that he could not even raise a glass of water without pain. Medical expert testimony was presented by the employer, which shrouded the claimant’s allegations of disability in serious doubt. The claimant’s hands and arm had no muscular atrophy and were covered in dirt and callouses, demonstrating that he was working and using his hands. The court granted a full defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) achieved a defense verdict in a Medicare conditional lien suit. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) filed a conditional lien payment request to the PIP insurer. The government contractors for CMS denied the insurer’s first- and second-level appeal and awarded the lien with interest. The matter was referred for handling of the third-level appeal, which moved from a government contractor to the court. At the hearing, it was proffered that the government violated the relevant statute of limitations on the prosecution of the conditional lien. The government alleged a six-year limitations period pursuant to the Secondary Payer Act. In response, it was demonstrated that a three-year limitations period controlled under the correct section of the statute and the government was misapprehending the correct limitations period. The court agreed and dismissed the lien for a complete defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) successfully had a workers’ compensation termination petition granted in a matter in which the claimant had an adjudicated right elbow injury. The claimant expert attempted to allege a different elbow injury than what had previously been adjudicated in order to defeat the termination petition. Res Judicata objections were sustained since the same expert tried to amend the nature of injury in previous litigation and was unsuccessful. The court granted a complete defense verdict.

Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended an Appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which challenged the Judge’s complete denial of the Claimant’s Claim Petition. The judge wholly credited the Employer’s surveillance footage and Employer witness testimony which directly contradicted the Claimant’s testimony. Through brief and oral argument, Alana argued that Claimant’s appeal attempted to impermissibly challenge the judge’s authority as the sole arbiter of credibility and emphasized that the judge was free to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence of record.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

Firm Highlights

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. 

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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.

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

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case