.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 2025

January 1, 2025

NEWS

Congratulations to Kiara Hartwell (Mount Laurel, NJ), who was elected a shareholder of the firm effective January 1, 2025. A member of the Workers’ Compensation Department since 2016, Kiara devotes her practice to defending employers, insurance carriers and self-insureds in workers’ compensation matters. She authors the New Jersey updates for our What’s Hot monthly workers’ compensation newsletter and frequently writes for external publications. Admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Kiara is a graduate of New York University and Rutgers University School of Law.

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was recently honored with the John J. Schickel Professionalism and Excellence Award by the E. Robert Williams Inn of Court. Well deserved!

On February 12, 2025, Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) will join a panel at CLM 2025 Focus Conference: Work Comp, Casualty and Risk Management in Lake Buena Vista, FL. In “Workers’ Comp Risk Management Best Practices: Insights from High-Risk Industries,” the panel will address the ongoing challenges of workers’ compensation in high-risk industries. The presenters will share customized risk management strategies, from talent acquisition and safety program development to effective injury management for smooth employee reintegration. For more information, visit https://lm.theclm.org/event/showeventdescription/29195. 
 

 

RESULTS*

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) received a favorable decision from the Industrial Accident Board. The Board accepted the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, which acknowledged lumbar spine and cervical spine injuries related to a work accident, although they fully resolved and the claimant returned to his preexisting baseline condition. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) reports five recent successful outcomes for our clients. In the first case, Tony successfully defended a Berks County mushroom farm from a claimant’s appeal challenging a full recovery termination award issued by the underlying court, as well as a dismissal of a penalty request/review challenging the nature of the adjudicated injury. The claimant alleged on appeal that the underlying decision of the court was predicated upon “hired-gun” experts and the court should have “nullified” this evidence. Interestingly, as pointed out in the litigation, the claimant was the only party that relied on a “treating expert,” who was hired by the claimant attorney’s to become the “treating physician” in the case. The Appeal Board systematically rejected the claimant’s “appeal to hypocrisy,” and the underlying court decision was affirmed in entirety.

Tony also successfully defended a Pennsylvania medical equipment manufacturing company in the litigation of claim and penalty petitions. The Claim Petition involved an alleged shoulder injury with a judgment on the pleadings due to a late answer. Tony forced the claimant to admit on cross examination that he left work due to reasons other than the alleged shoulder injury. Tony also forced claimant’s medical expert to admit that the claimant was actively treating for a pre-existing shoulder condition which he withheld from the court and the defense expert. The court found the claimant and his expert not to be credible and dismissed all petitions in their entirety, resulting in a complete defense verdict.

Tony received a full defense verdict on behalf of a Pennsylvania medical equipment manufacturing company in the litigation of a claim petition involving an alleged ankle and Achilles Tendon injury. The claimant alleged, while “stepping backwards” at his work station, he felt immediate pain. Tony cross examined the claimant’s medical expert and established that this expert did not treat the claimant for his ankle or Achilles Tendon, was unaware the claimant had a prior ankle fracture with surgery, and admitted the current surgery and disability were the result of a degenerative condition arising out of the prior, unrelated ankle fracture. 

Tony also successfully defended a Montgomery County police department in the litigation of a Claim Petition. The claimant, a police officer, attended an out-of-state extended-stay educational conference. One evening after the conference activities ended, the claimant attended a “booze cruise” where she was imbibing with conference attendees, and she continued to socialize and party back at the hotel. Later that night, she entered her hotel suite (which was shared with another female officer), shining her flashlight in order to change clothes. While changing, her roommate became perturbed over the ruckus. An argument between the two officers ignited and soon thereafter full-fledged fisticuffs. The claimant alleged physical injuries, post-concussive syndrome, mental injuries and total disability. Tony cross examined the claimant and developed an evidence supporting she was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury. Tony also presented medical witnesses to support that the claimant did not suffer from post-concussive syndrome or any disabling physical or mental injuries. 

In a workers’ compensation case of first impression in Pennsylvania, Tony successfully defended a Berks County mushroom canning facility from a Claim Petition alleging repetitive trauma injuries to the upper extremities. The claimant worked as a machine operator and alleged that over time his duties caused nerve injuries to both upper extremities. Tony presented medical expert testimony which supported the existence of these nerve damage conditions in the upper extremities but challenged causation. In a modified Frye challenge to the claimant’s medical expert opinions, Tony argued through expert testimony that the state of science and medicine overwhelmingly supports the fact that “repetitive trauma” is not a substantial contributing factor to the development of carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndromes. While the court allowed the claimant to present expert testimony to the contrary, it ultimately found Tony’s expert testimony opinions to outweigh the claimant’s experts’ testimony. The court concluded for the first time in Pennsylvania that carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome is not borne out through alleged repetitive trauma. 

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA) received a favorable decision where the judge terminated the claimant’s wage loss and medical benefits and denied claimant’s Review Petition to expand the nature of injury based on the opinion of the independent medical examiner. The claimant’s Petition to Review alleged the work injury included cervical radiculopathy, requiring surgical intervention, as well as disfigurement. After reviewing deposition testimony from the claimant, her treating physician and the independent medical evaluator, the judge was specifically persuaded that the claimant did not sustain a cervical spine injury; thus, the surgery was not related as her complaints to her neck did not begin until nearly a week after the original fall. Thus, the claimant’s medical and indemnity benefits were terminated and the review petition was dismissed in its entirety. 

Robert Schenk (Philadelphia, PA) successfully had the claimant’s Claim Petition denied by the judge, and in doing so, the judge found the claimant’s testimony as not credible. Robert established the claimant did not report a work-related injury until after she had been advised light-duty work was only available for employees injured on the job, along with surveillance evidence showing the claimant returning and working on the date of injury with no apparent injury. The claimant’s testimony about prior injuries was also in conflict with contemporaneous hospital records and those medical records showed the claimant had prior low back problems, with no new trauma being reported to the emergency room on the date of injury. 

In another matter, the judge granted Robert’s Petition to Review Medical Treatment. This would have been a termination petition, but the employer’s medical expert found the claimant fully recovered from only two of the three injuries. The judge found the testimony of the employer’s medical expert credible and granted the petition.

In a final case, Robert defended a Claim Petition where the judge awarded wage loss benefits for only three months and then terminated benefits based on the medical opinion of the employer’s medical expert.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received three favorable decisions recently. In the first case, Judd successfully defended a Claim Petition that alleged a hip and low back injury. Judd presented video evident showing the claimant limping when he arrived at work the day of the alleged injury. The workers’ compensation judge credited the video and the opinions of our medical expert in denying and dismissing the Claim Petition. 

In a second case, Judd successfully prosecuted a termination petition, arguing a full recovery from a left hand and low back injury. The workers’ compensation judge credited the opinions of our medical expert, that the claimant had fully recovered from his injuries. 

Finally, Judd successfully obtained orders in two separate cases directing the claimants to appear for IMEs as they had no valid excuse for their failure to appear for the IMEs the first time.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 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

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.

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

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.

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.

News

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

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.

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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