.

Workers' Compensation Defense

The Workers' Compensation Practice Group is devoted to the exclusive representation of employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. While many of the attorneys in this group have a background in civil litigation, they all focus their practice solely on the defense of workers' compensation matters. Our attorneys are well versed in the intricacies of this nuanced practice, and due to their constant presence in the courts where they practice, they are well respected by the judges before whom they regularly appear and the attorneys against whom they compete.

Our attorneys are involved in all aspects of workers' compensation, from the infancy of a claim through practice in the appellate courts. We are vigorous litigators who also recognize that litigation is not always the primary focus of an employer's successful workers' compensation program. Significant monetary savings can be achieved through the effective management of workers' compensation plans and innovative return-to-work programs, and our attorneys are on the cutting edge of case law developments to assist in the design, implementation and continuation of such programs. We also provide risk management services and can help reduce costs by becoming involved during the pre-litigation phase. In addition, the work of the attorneys in the firm's highly regarded Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group includes front-line responsibility for conducting necessary legal research, writing required briefs, and preparing and presenting oral arguments in post-trial motions and appeals.

As workers' compensation has become increasingly sophisticated, we have expanded our scope of practice to support clients in areas that have become tangential to the workers' compensation practice.

Workers' Compensation Fraud
Fraud contributes significantly to the cost of doing business and negatively impacts employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. We can facilitate the filing of a fraud claim through local government agencies and review all cases for civil remedies to help our clients recoup some of the monies expended due to fraudulent cases.

Unemployment Compensation
It has become increasingly apparent that there is a cross-over between workers’ compensation and unemployment cases. While the two areas of law are mutually exclusive by way of collateral estoppel, it is clear the same issues are simultaneously being litigated in both forums. By using the unemployment and workers’ compensation forums to bolster defenses in both claims, we achieve successful results for our clients. Our unemployment practice is full service, with our attorneys handling claims at all levels of the courts.

Federal Black Lung
Our attorneys defend claims brought before the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) by coal miners and widows seeking benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We are intimately familiar with the lengthy litigation process involved with Federal Black Lung claims originating at the USDOL and proceeding to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Our attorneys have also handled numerous appeals to the Benefits Review Board and the United States Court of Appeals. We are also well versed in defending pulmonary disease cases under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act that often go hand-in-hand with claims brought under the Black Lung Benefits Act.

Hearing Loss Claims
Injuries resulting from exposure to hazardous occupational noise comprise one of the largest group of specific loss/permanency claims in the tri-state area. In addition to becoming more commonplace, these claims have also become more technologically complex. Each attorney assigned to hearing loss claims are familiar with the science behind acoustical trauma, including the inner workings of audiometric testing, leading to effective cross examination of key witnesses. Further, our attorneys seek to expose pre-existing, non-work related hearing loss and differentiate it from compensable loss. We are one of the leading defense firms in protecting successor-in-interest employers that are unexpectedly plagued with hearing loss claims stemming from employees’ hazardous noise exposure with previous employers. In Pennsylvania, we were pioneers in the effort to change the standard of monetary award in hearing loss cases from an all-encompassing specific loss award to that of a percentage award based on actual work-related hearing loss. Our attorneys are also well versed in the practical implications of a working hearing conservation program and the benefits such a program can have on an employer’s bottom line.

Medicare Compliance
Our Medicare team has the comprehensive knowledge necessary to effectively handle set-asides in all parts of the country. We are well-versed in federal and state liability systems, as well as the workers’ compensation systems. In addition to protecting Medicare’s interests through set-asides, we also alert our clients to the involvement of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reporting Law. We offer cogent advice regarding case settlements, including the use of structured settlements and other strategies to bring cases to conclusion. We are willing and able to work with lawyers throughout the country to provide the support they need regarding Medicare issues.

Coverage
Occasionally, carriers are drawn into workers' compensation litigation notwithstanding a dispute between the employer and the carrier as to viable workers' compensation coverage. Our attorneys have experience in navigating the potential pitfalls that can arise during litigation due to the conflicting interests of the employer and the carrier, and have successfully obtained dismissals of carriers as parties from these unwarranted claims.

Interplay Between the ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
Our attorneys have expansive knowledge of the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation statutes that all impact termination of employment. We fully understand the complex relationship between these statutes and provide our clients the necessary guidance during the pre-litigation phase. We also advise our clients on the potential impact of a wrongful termination and provide detailed recommendations to facilitate a lawful employment termination. Our legal approach focuses on mitigating future exposure by providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls when navigating the decision to terminate an employee. We work with our clients to evaluate and address all legal issues involving the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation as it pertains to avoiding a wrongful termination claim.

Medical Marijuana
There has been a wave of medical marijuana legalization throughout the country in recent years. It is now legal in more than 38 states, including ones where we defend clients in workers’ compensation matters. Our attorneys are knowledgeable about the medical marijuana laws in these specific states and can provide sound advice on the many issues that arise in the workers’ compensation context. Some of these issues include insurance coverage, payment, reasonableness and necessity of medical cannabis treatment for work injuries, work injuries that qualify as conditions treatable with medical cannabis, and workplace safety concerns. We are also committed to tracking important trends in medical marijuana law nationally to keep our clients well informed of significant developments and the impact they may have on the practice of workers’ compensation.

Defense Base Act
The Defense Base Act (DBA) extends protections to civilian employees working outside the United States on U.S. military bases or under contracts with the U.S. government involving public works or national defense. It provides comprehensive medical, disability, and death benefits to covered employees who suffer injuries or fatalities arising out of and in the course of employment. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the complex regulations and procedures governing DBA claims. We deliver strategic, results-driven representation at every stage of the process—from claim investigation and mediation through formal hearings and appeals before the Benefits Review Board, U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Our goal is to protect our clients’ interests while minimizing the risks and financial exposure associated with Defense Base Act claims.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
We understand the legal, operational, and financial challenges employers, insurers, and maritime companies face when responding to Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claims. Our attorneys bring extensive experience litigating before the U.S. Department of Labor, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Benefits Review Board, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Working closely with clients, investigators, and medical and vocational experts, we develop disciplined, evidence-driven defenses tailored to the facts of each case. We provide proactive, results-focused representation at every stage of the process—from initial claim evaluation through trial and appeal.

PENNSYLVANIA

Fee Reviews
Fee reviews have become an increasingly important component of workers' compensation cases in Pennsylvania. Our attorneys are very familiar with the legal issues associated with the fee review process and its interplay with active workers’ compensation litigation. By becoming involved at the onset of a fee review filing, we are better positioned to defend the interests of employers/carriers. Medical providers use fee reviews to challenge the timeliness or amount of medical payments made by employers/carriers. Providers are given two opportunities to file a timely application for fee review – (1) within 90 days of their original billing date, or (2) within 30 days after they are provided with notice of a dispute, whichever is later. The fee review process presupposes that liability has been established, and thus, provider's allegations are accepted at face value during the initial stages. As an unfortunate consequence, employers/carriers may face unjust initial Determinations. Disputing a fee review Determination requires a de novo appeal, which must be filed within 30 days of the date of the Determination. Our attorneys have extensive experience navigating the issues that then arise during fee review hearings and provide excellent guidance based on our thorough understanding of CPT codes and types of treatment. Our goal is to handle each case in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Heart and Lung Benefits
In addition to handling traditional workers’ compensation claims, our attorneys also advise local municipalities and counties in Pennsylvania on heart and lung claims. The Heart and Lung Act provides full wage loss benefits to certain eligible municipal, county and state workers who are injured in the performance of their job duties. With a depth of experience in this area, we are well versed in the associated law and adept at defending clients facing these types of claims. Our attorneys understand the complex interplay between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, and will provide the necessary guidance in pre-litigation settings, address all issues to challenge entitlement to Heart and Lung benefits, and explain its impact on a workers’ compensation claim. Our approach focuses on mitigating future exposure and providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls in handling Heart and Lung Act claims. We work with our clients to evaluate and achieve reasonable resolution of both the heart and lung and worker’s compensation claims, as well as address any subrogation issues.

FLORIDA

Stop Work Orders
Stop Work Orders or Requests for Business Records are issued by the Division of Workers’ Compensation Investigators for the state of Florida. A business cannot legally operate while a Stop Work Order is in place. Failure to comply with a Stop Work Order can result in increased penalty assessments and, in some cases, criminal sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute 440.105. Our attorneys can assist business owners in navigating this difficult and complicated process, including record requests, reducing penalty assessments and filing petitions before Department of Administrative Hearings.

Insurance Premium Audits and Disputes
Disputes occasionally arise between employers and carriers after an audit takes place. Workers’ compensation rates in Florida are based upon job title and payroll, and discrepancies discovered following an audit can lead to loss of coverage, fines and assessments. We can assist employers throughout this dispute process, which can lead to improved outcomes and reduced assessments.

Results

Events

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, October 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, September 2026 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 Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

October 20, 2026

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.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.