.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2025

April 1, 2025

NEWS

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars

We are pleased to announce that Kiara Hartwell and Adam Huber (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) have been selected to the 2025 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. 

 

RESULTS*

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The Worker’s Compensation Judge granted the Review and Termination Petitions and denied the claimant’s Review Petition. The claimant fell approximately 20 feet from a ladder while climbing off a roof. He landed on his feet and sustained bilateral calcaneal fractures. The employer issued a Notice of Compensation Payable accepting bilateral ankle fractures. In his Termination Petition, Michael alleged a full recovery and filed the Review Petition to amend the description of injury to bilateral calcaneal fractures instead of bilateral ankle fractures. The claimant, too, filed a Review Petition to amend the description of injury to include traumatic neuropathic pain secondary to bilateral calcaneal fractures, lumbar spine strain, lumbar spine disc injury and bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. The workers’ compensation judge found the defense expert more credible than the claimant’s expert. 

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE):

  • The Industrial Accident Board rejected the claimant’s allegation that she sustained a 40% permanent impairment to the left arm caused by complex regional pain syndrome. The claimant’s expert used the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment to arrive at 40%. Instead, the Board accepted the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, who relied upon the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides. The Board concluded that the appropriate rating was 13% to the left upper extremity.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a claimant who tripped at work and sustained an injury to the knee. The claimant’s body habitus was one of morbid obesity prior to the injury. Expert medical evidence was presented demonstrating the work injury was limited to a contusion and that the significant degeneration in the knee was pre-existing and due to wear and tear related to morbid obesity. The court found the expert’s opinion of full recovery to be credible and limited the injury to a knee contusion which fully resolved, resulting in a complete defense verdict.
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant who was helping to lift a 400-pound slab when she felt her shoulder “pop.” After vigorous cross examination, the claimant admitted that she provided notice 122 days after the date of injury (which was untimely by the letter of the law). She then asserted that her injury was “repetitive trauma” and argued that each day she worked after the original incident caused a new injury. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical experts dispelled her theory of compensability. The court dismissed the Claim Petition on the bases of a violation of the notice provisions of the Act and on the lack of credibility of the medical experts presented. A complete defense verdict on all counts. 
  • Successfully defended a Claim Petition involving a claimant, who slipped and fell down a flight of concrete stairs and alleged multiple injuries to body parts, from head to toe. The employer’s panel doctor found the work injuries limited to the claimant’s extremities. The claimant was referred by his attorney to a pain specialist who opined significant injuries to multiple body parts. However, claimant’s a expert was forced to admit that he has been practicing medicine for less than two years and only offered opinions about neck and back injuries—nothing else. The claimant alleged serious disc herniation injuries in the neck and back and still pursued other body part injuries in the litigation with no additional expert evidence. The employer presented an orthopedic surgeon who found no injuries on the date of his evaluation and opined that the claimant fully healed from any injuries he may have sustained. The court found only minor strains to the neck and back with a full and complete recovery (and no further benefits due). Allegations of multiple disc herniation injuries were dismissed as unrelated.
  • Successfully prosecuted a Suspension Petition involving a claimant who was released to return to work with restrictions and ultimately to full duty. She failed to return to her pre-injury position upon release to full duty, but she did return to alternate employment. Any wage loss was argued to be unrelated to the work injury since the pre-injury job was open and available. The court granted a suspension of benefits on this basis, resulting in a full defense verdict. 
  • Successfully prosecuted a third level appeal regarding Medicare conditional payments after an auto accident injury. This appeal centered on the federal government’s contractor who continually denied the company’s initial level appeals to limit conditional payment recoupment based on policy exhaustion. The court found the evidence submitted supported the auto policy at issue, the payments made on the basis of the policy and exhaustion of the policy after paying numerous medical bills. The government sought additional conditional payments and after a vociferous oral argument, the court found no additional conditional payments were due. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA):

  • Successfully prosecuted a Modification Petition, establishing a significant reduction in dependent benefits as the claimant’s daughter was over 18 and was not enrolled as a full-time student in any accredited educational institution, pursuant to § 307 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Based upon documentary evidence and a sound legal argument, the judge granted the decrease in weekly benefits and awarded a 100% credit against future benefits for the employer to recoup the overpayment that occurred beginning in 2023.

Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA):

  • The workers’ compensation judge granted Petitions for Review of Utilization Review Determinations, finding the treatment by three of the claimant’s medical providers to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The treatments found unreasonable and unnecessary included electrical stimulation, chiropractic manipulation, PRP injections, Botox injections, pain patches, trigger point injections and office visits. 
  • The judge granted a Petition to Terminate benefits as the judge found the opinions of our medical expert competent and credible and terminated benefits as of the date of the IME. 
  • The workers’ compensation judge granted a Termination Petition and denied the claimant’s Review/Reinstatement Petition. The judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, that the claimant was fully recovered from his accepted low back strain and right shoulder strain and that surgery performed on the claimant’s shoulder was not related to the work injury. He also found the claimant’s own testimony to be inconsistent and not credible.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 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.

Firm Highlights

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle