Workers’ compensation defense requires precision, responsiveness, and a deep command of the law. We are dedicated to representing employers, insurance carriers and third-party administrators, focusing our practice solely on the defense of workers’ compensation claims.
Our approach is strategic, responsive, and grounded in efficiency. We work closely with clients to resolve claims promptly and effectively, with an eye toward reducing exposure and controlling costs while maintaining compliance with evolving workers’ compensation laws.
Our representation spans every phase of the litigation process, with an emphasis on proactive risk mitigation. By helping clients strengthen their workers’ compensation programs and return to work strategies, we support meaningful cost savings and operational stability.
Workers' Compensation Practices
Results
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
What's Hot in Workers' Comp - 2024 to present
December 31, 2026
Our monthly workers’ compensation publication provides legal updates and practical analysis of developments affecting employers, insurers, and claims professionals. Each issue highlights recent case law and statutory and regulatory changes to help readers stay informed, manage risk, and respond effectively to evolving workers’ compensation requirements. What's Hot in Workers' Comp, August 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, July 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, April 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, March 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, February 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, January 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, December 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, November 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, October 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, September 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, August 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, July 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, December 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, November 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, October 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, September 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, August 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, July 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, June 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, May 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2024
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Commonwealth Court Deemed Worker an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement; Insurer Estopped from Denying Coverage
September 22, 2026
In this case, the claimant filed a Claim Petition for injuries sustained on October 28, 2019, naming J&S as his Employer, and alleging that the injuries occurred when he fell from a ladder while installing a satellite dish for Dish Network. Dish Network contracted with J&S to install satellite dishes. Subsequently J&S filed a Petition to Join Brickstreet Insurance Company and the claimant filed a Claim Petition against the Uninsured Employer Guaranty Fund. The Fund then joined Dish Network as another employer. Before the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ), the claimant testified that he was hired in 2015 by J&S and at the time signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (IC Agreement). J&S defended the case on the basis that the claimant was not an employee, but was an independent contractor, even after the IC Agreement expired. Additional evidence showed that, at the time of the October 28, 2019, work injury, J&S’ workers’ compensation insurance with Brickstreet had lapsed, even though a Brickstreet agent had been working to renew J&S’ policy and had a Certificate for coverage from September 25, 2019 to September 25, 2020 issued, with Dish Network listed as the Certificate Holder. A renewal policy was not in effect at the time the Certificate was issued and the agent learned on October 25, 2019 that Brickstreet was not going to renew their policy with J&S, due to an unpaid premium. Ultimately, the WCJ found that the claimant was an employee of J&S at the time of the work injury and that J&S did not have a workers’ compensation policy in place at the time, due to their failure to pay the renewal premium to Brickstreet. The WCJ also found Dish Network was a Statutory Employer under Section 302(a) of the Act. The Claim Petition and the Guaranty Fund Claim Petition were both granted, as was the Guaranty Fund’s Petition to Join Dish Network. The WCJ also denied J&S’ Petition to Join Brickstreet, finding that neither J&S or Dish Network showed that Brickstreet was estopped from denying coverage. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) and the Board affirmed. J&S and Dish Network appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court rejected J&S' argument that the claimant was an independent contractor. In doing so, the court noted that the claimant credibly testified that he worked for J&S full time, could not work for another company, and that J&S, scheduled his jobs, tracked him, and scheduled additional installations, if he finished early. Additionally, the court noted the claimant lacked discretion in the manner he performed his job, because all questions had to be referred to J&S. As for Dish Network’s appeal, the court held that the WCJ erred in holding that Brickstreet was not estopped from denying coverage as to Dish Network. According to the court, the insurance agent was an authorized representative of Brickstreet and, at the direction of J&S, issued the Certificate of Insurance that he knew was not accurate at the time, and was aware would be presented as proof of coverage for J&S. Dish Network relied upon that information and continued to use J&S, ultimately leading to Dish Network being named as the Statutory Employer liable for payment of benefits because of J&S’ uninsured status. The court held that the Board erred in affirming the WCJ ’s conclusion that Dish Network did not establish that Brickstreet was equitably estopped from denying coverage, reversed the decision below, and remanded the case to the WCJ.
