.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 30, No. 8, August 2026

August 13, 2026

RESULTS

Lela Eke (Roseland) secured a significant victory in a catastrophic injury workers’ compensation matter involving an above-knee amputation and approximately $2 million in past medical bills. After more than a year of litigation over Motions for Medical and Temporary Benefits and a subsequent Motion to Compel/Payment of Bills, the claimant sought an order requiring payment of medical expenses for which certain providers had intervened and were pursuing their own claims through separate counsel. We argued that the intervenors’ bills were not properly before the court and should not be included in the MMT Order. The court agreed, finding that the bills were outside the scope of the MMT Order and further determining that the employer had complied with the other applicable requirements. As a result, the claimant’s counsel was not entitled to a potential 25% fee on the approximately $2 million in intervenors’ medical bills, preserving up to approximately $500,000 in potential savings. The ruling also preserved the client’s ability to negotiate the outstanding medical bills rather than requiring their immediate payment.

Andrew Maffett (Harrisburg) obtained a favorable result in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter. The matter involved the employer’s petitions to suspend and terminate workers’ compensation benefits arising from a July 22, 2024 work injury. With respect to the suspension petition, the employer presented fact-witness testimony that modified-duty work was available within the claimant’s treating physician’s restrictions. The judge credited that testimony and granted the suspension petition effective May 19, 2025. With respect to the termination petition, the employer presented testimony from an expert that the claimant had fully recovered from the work injury. The judge credited that testimony and granted the termination petition effective June 5, 2025. As a result, the employer was permitted to discontinue indemnity and medical benefits related to the July 22, 2024 injury and pursue supersedeas fund reimbursement for wage loss and medical benefits paid during the litigation.

Perry Merlo (Harrisburg) secured a favorable decision in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter involving a dispute over wage-loss benefits. The parties stipulated that the claimant had sustained a work injury but left unresolved whether he was entitled to indemnity benefits for the period from June 2, 2025, through November 17, 2025. The claimant testified that the employer had failed to accommodate his work restrictions during that time. In response, we presented testimony from an employer fact witness establishing that the claimant had been provided work within his restrictions without any loss of wages. The judge credited the employer’s witness over the claimant and denied the claim for approximately five months of wage-loss benefits, resulting in a favorable decision for the employer.

William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a favorable resolution in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter pending in Newark. The claim involved alleged injuries to the lower back, bilateral knees, and bilateral hands. We filed a motion seeking dismissal as to the carrier, arguing that coverage was not in effect on the date of the alleged accident. The judge granted the motion and entered an order dismissing the carrier from the case.

William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a dismissal in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter. The claim involved allegations of occupational exposure resulting in orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities. After numerous delays by the claimant’s counsel in prosecuting the matter, we successfully obtained a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal resulted in a complete resolution of the claim.

William Murphy (Roseland) successfully dismissed a New Jersey workers’ compensation claim involving allegations of a decade-long occupational exposure. The claimant alleged orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities arising from the exposure. After the claimant’s counsel failed to take the necessary steps to advance the matter, we pursued dismissal for lack of prosecution. The court granted the request, bringing the claim to a complete and favorable conclusion.

William Murphy (Roseland) successfully secured the dismissal with prejudice of two New Jersey workers’ compensation medical provider applications seeking a combined $71,534.47. The applications arose from medical treatment allegedly related to a September 11, 2021 workplace injury. We challenged the claims on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the underlying accident occurred in New York and lacked a sufficient connection to New Jersey. Despite the two matters being assigned to different judges of compensation, both judges agreed with the jurisdictional argument and entered orders dismissing the respective claims with prejudice on July 23 and 24, 2026. The result eliminated $71,534.47 in claimed exposure.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict in a workers' compensation case in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in the form of a bilateral knee strain during the course and scope of employment. She continued to treat for these injuries without cessation. She originally refused a job offer to return to work and continued treatment. A board-certified orthopedic surgeon who specializes in knee injuries examined her and found that despite the varied and somewhat bizarre subjective pain complaints, there were no objective corroborative findings to support ongoing injury or disability. This medical expert testimony was proffered and accepted by the court as credible, resulting in a full defense verdict.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 71-year-old certified nursing assistant who suffered a work injury to the lumbar spine with a pre-existing back condition, the latter of which the claimant denied. The defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in surgical treatment of spinal injuries, examined the claimant and his opinions were found competent, credible and persuasive supporting a full recovery based upon a comprehensive physical examination, review of medical records and x-rays of the lumbar spine as well as three MRIs of the lumbar spine in 2023, 2024 and 2025 revealing no post-traumatic findings nor an aggravation of her pre-existing lumbar condition. Michele demonstrated claimant’s expert lacked the expertise and experience and his focus was on pain management. The judge rejected claimant’s medical expert as not credible even though he attempted to support an aggravation of her underlying degenerative disc disease. The judge further rejected claimant’s testimony given her efforts to unequivocally deny prior back injury going as far as to say it would be a lie to say she had a prior low back injury despite the medical records that clearly demonstrated prior treatment along with medication for her lumbar spine. Also, the demonstration of her sporadic treatment further supported a lack of credibility as did favorable surveillance showing her active.  

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

NEWS

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) is speaking at the National Comp conference in Las Vegas in September. He joins a group of panelists to present “Older, Wiser, But Costlier to Heal: What an Aging Workforce Means for Employers and for the Industry,” a discussion focused on the challenges employers face in balancing safety, compliance, and productivity as the workforce continues to age. Judd and his co-presenters will address proactive strategies to reduce workplace risk, support older employees, navigate age-discrimination and workers’ compensation issues, and build a safer, more resilient workforce. For more information, visit National Comp. Conference and Trade Show.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

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.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

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.

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.

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. 

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

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case