.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2024

December 1, 2024

NEWS

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) has been recognized as 2024 Florida Trend “Legal Elite NOTABLE - Women Leaders in Law.” Heather is honored for her impact in the field of law, mentorship, and leadership in professional organizations and civic/community service initiatives. Read the news release here.

On November 20, Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) was one of the key speakers at the annual Delaware Valley Workers’ Compensation Trust’s (DVWCT) Claim Prevention seminar. This live event was attended by Risk Control employees, managers, police chiefs, and command staff as well as department heads and local government leadership in the townships and municipalities that are administered by the DVWCT. Tony spoke on the importance of presenting unified and global defenses between workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, internal grievance arbitration and employment law where applicable in cases involving workplace injuries. Tony was able to give examples of this unified directive, citing a current case in litigation involving all of these areas of law and the blue print used to provide a global defense.

On November 15, The Legal Intelligencer published “Goodbye ‘Yellow Freight’ Road?,” by Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA). You can read Judd’s article here.
 

RESULTS*

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended against two review petitions where the claimant sought to expand the description of injury from a right shoulder injury to include cervical and lumbar disc herniations, radiculopathy and various psychiatric injuries. The claimant also sought to increase his average weekly wage to a significantly higher expectation rate. The workers’ compensation judge limited the injuries to the right shoulder and rejected the claimant’s expectation rate argument.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully had a penalty petition, filed against a local university, dismissed on all counts. The claimant sustained an injury to his low back which was accepted as compensable. The claimant returned to work at a modified job, and his benefits were made the subject of a notice of suspension. The claimant worked for several months and never challenged the suspension notice. Thereafter, the claimant left work when his attorney referred him to a new treating doctor. The carrier made some changes to claim data within the WCAIS system (correcting the claimant’s address). As a result of a glitch in the WCAIS system, a new Notice of Compensation Payable was issued based on this data change. The claimant filed a penalty petition, arguing his benefits must be reinstated based on the issuance of the new Bureau document. Tony presented evidence by way of factual testimony and documentary evidence to demonstrate the fallibility of the WCAIS system and exposed the illogical argument made by the claimant’s attorney to the contrary. The court dismissed the penalty in its entirety.

Tony Natale also successfully defended an giant fashion distribution center in the litigation of a Claim Petition. The claimant filed a work injury claim against the fashion center. The matter was assigned to a workers’ compensation judge, and the employer/carrier failed to file a timely answer, relegating all “well pleaded facts” as an admission against interest. As it turned out, the named employer did not have an employer/employee relationship with the claimant, but the late answer acted as an admission of such a relationship based on the pleadings within the claim. Tony was then referred the case to try to mitigate exposure in light of this negative turn of events. Based purely on oral argument detailing the constitutionally offensive result that would be achieved by the interpretation of the case law surrounding late answers, the court dismissed the Claim Petition in its entirety.

Tony Natale also successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of Pennsylvania cabinetry company. The matter originally began as a settlement of a prior 2009 work injury claim. At the settlement hearing, the claimant chose to forego the settlement after learning through Tony’s cross examination of the potential Medicare issues involved in the claim. The employer/insurer moved forward with a new independent medical exam with a renowned orthopedic surgeon. A termination petition was filed, alleging full and complete recovery from the work-related injury, and the court adopted the defense medical opinions as fact. As a result, all benefits were terminated. 

Rachel Ramsay-Lowe (Roseland, NJ) successfully completed a trial on the issue of whether the claimant had a cognitive disorder and whether the carrier should authorized medical treatment for a spinal cord stimulator. After taking testimony of both doctors, the courts agreed with Rachel’s argument that the claimant’s doctor’s report lacked objective medical findings to reach the diagnosis of cognitive disorder and dismissed this from the overall claim. The claimant also requested a hearing to address the carrier’s denial of a spinal cord stimulator. Rachel made the argument the claimant’s injuries are merely a strain/strain of the lumbar spine and that the claimant failed to meet the medical treatment guidelines, which require the claimant receive a psych evaluation to determine if they are a good candidate for the stimulator. In addition, Rachel successfully argued the treatment currently rendered does not show a failed back surgery or a special circumstance where a stimulator should be granted. The court agreed with Rachel’s argument and found the carrier does not have to provide a spinal court stimulator.

Michael Sebastian (Scranton, PA) successfully defended a Claim Petition, which alleged the claimant suffered a work-related cervical injury on June 29, 2023. The claimant testified that he felt a snap in his back, but did not feel the pain right away, and continued to work until July 17, 2024. He then went to the emergency room and subsequently had surgery on July 20, 2023. During cross-examination, the claimant agreed he only suffered a cervical injury, not a low back injury. He further noted he had a prior low back injury on October 19, 2022, for which he filled out an accident report and was sent to a doctor and received treatment. However, the claimant first reported the June 29, 2023, injury on September 1, 2023, and at that time could not recall a specific event that occurred on June 29, 2023. However, he did confirm he heard a snap in his back when the injury did occur. The claimant also agreed he worked full duty, without reporting the incident, until July 17, 2024.

Dr. Martinez, the claimant’s expert, testified the claimant was a partial quadriplegic in the upper and lower extremities. Dr. Martinez opined the claimant had cervical stenosis with myelopathy and, given his underlying condition, was probably going to have surgery at some point in the future but it was aggravated by the constant use of his neck. 

Dr. Henderson, the defense expert, found no evidence of a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, and that the claimant’s symptoms are consistent with cervical stenosis with myelopathy, which is a degenerative condition. Dr. Henderson opined the claimant’s surgery was for a pre-existing condition and the current treatment is unrelated to any alleged work injury. Dr. Henderson reviewed the MRI from from July 17, 2023, noting there were no acute findings. He also reviewed Dr. Martinez’s testimony, noting the claimant did not have disc herniations and that the surgery was not for disc herniations, but for disc issues in the cervical spine that were degenerative in nature. 

The workers’ compensation judge found the claimant to be not credible to the extent he testified he suffered a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, or any disability related to it. He noted the claimant’s demeanor during the hearing was not credible and that his testimony was called into question based upon the employer’s policy that you must immediately report injuries, as he had in the past. The judge also noted the claimant’s description of the work injury, i.e., a snap in his back, conflicted with documentation and the contemporaneous medical records. He also noted that prior similar complaints made on June 26, 2023, and failed to mention a work-related injury in the July 17, 2023, medical notes. The judge noted that subsequent treatment notes also indicate the injury or condition pre-dated the June 29, 2023, work injury date. 

The judge accepted the testimony of Dr. Henderson over Dr. Martinez, noting that Dr. Martinez did not review the cervical MRI films or reports and did not have the medical records immediately pre-dating the work injury, including Dr. Tayoun’s records. The judge found that Dr. Henderson’s history, opinions and testimony were corroborated by the medical records. Further, the judge emphasized that Dr. Martinez, during cross examination, offered inconsistent and illogical explanations that the claimant’s lumbar complaints and lower extremity findings were related to the lumbar condition prior to the work injury, but after that date they were related to the cervical condition. 

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) secured a decision denying the claimant’s Claim and Penalty Petitions. The claimant, a mechanic, alleged he sustained a right ankle fracture, right ankle abscess, and avulsion fracture of the lateral talus as a result of falling off the back of a pickup truck while removing a truck-cap at work. The claimant asserted he was on the clock and on the employer’s premises when the fall occurred. He claimed he was assisting his employer’s friend in removing his truck-cap from his pickup truck. Through employer witness testimony, Kacey was able to show that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment when he injured his ankle. Kacey proved the claimant assisted the individual with removing the truck-cap for a purely personal reason and not at the direction of his employer. Kacey also showed that the injury occurred shortly after the claimant’s work shift ended and he had clocked out for the day. 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2024 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 © 2023 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

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

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.

Result

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial