Thought Leadership

NEWS

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) co-authored, with clients, the article “Danger: High Risk Ahead – Managing Workers’ Comp Exposure in Risky Industries,” appearing in the May/June issue of CLM Magazine. The article discusses best workers’ compensation claims management practices for high-risk sectors including construction, health care, transportation, and retail and hospitality. You can read the article here.

On June 12, Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) presented as part of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Law Section Tough Problems in Workers’ Compensation 2025. Mike co-presented as part of a panel on “Surveillance and Using Social Media to Win Your Case.” Designed specifically by and for the experienced workers’ compensation practitioner, this webcast highlighted select challenges in workers’ compensation practice and offered techniques for managing them. Developments, practices, strategies, and preferences were discussed to help avoid making mistakes that could negatively affect a client’s claim.
 

RESULTS*

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received a decision from the U.S. Department of Labor denying the claimant’s request for Federal Black Lung benefits. This was the miner’s fifth attempt to be awarded Federal Black Lung benefits. He was credited with 8.9 years of qualifying coal mine employment, and he was also found to have coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. However, the evidence failed to show that his pneumoconiosis was disabling or would prohibit him from performing his last coal mining employment. Therefore, benefits were once again denied.

Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) received dismissal of Claim, Review and Reinstatement Petitions. The claimant sustained a shoulder injury during the course and scope of employment. She returned to work with the employer at a modified-duty job and then abandoned the job for a position with an alternate employer. Thereafter, she filed Claim, Reinstatement and Review Petitions, alleging she sustained injuries to her opposite shoulder prior to her job abandonment. The parties submitted competing medical expert evidence, and the court found that the claimant did not sustain a new work injury. All petitions were dismissed.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) received an opinion from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirming the decision granting our Termination Petition. The employer had accepted an “upper back area” injury through a Notice of Compensation Payable. Prior to issuing the NCP, the employer secured an IME, where the doctor ultimately opined that the claimant was fully recovered from a lumbar sprain. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was fully recovered from the work injury based upon the credible opinions of the employer’s medical expert. The judge also rejected the claimant’s testimony and his expert’s testimony. The claimant appealed, arguing the termination was improper as the IME occurred before the NCP was issued; therefore, the change in condition needed to occur after the NCP. Additionally, the claimant argued the termination was improper as the IME doctor found a different injury than the injury noted on the NCP. The Appeal Board opined that the employer sustained its burden of proof as its expert’s testimony constituted substantial evidence, sufficient in nature to meet its burden of proof. The Appeal Board further found that since the employer was not disputing an injury occurred, it was not attempting to re-litigate whether the claimant sustained a work injury. Rather, it was disputing whether the claimant was still disabled. The Appeal Board further opined that the claimant’s expert evaluated the whole back and that the credible evidence revealed the claimant was fully recovered.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully litigated two Petitions to Review Utilization Review Determinations regarding the reasonableness and necessity of treatment of a chiropractor and a licensed acupuncturist. These treatments were ultimately found not reasonable and necessary, as of August 29, 2024, for the acupuncturist and September 29, 2024, for the chiropractor. The workers’ compensation judge accepted as competent and credible the opinions of the defense medical expert, a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon, based upon the physical evaluation and review of diagnostic study films. Further, the judge recognized the vigorous cross-examination of the claimant, which established that the claimant did not improve and could not specify which treatment was beneficial. Michele also emphasized that the chiropractor’s treatment was for complaints consistent with the MRI findings, which were not the recognized work injury. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 7, July 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.}