.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 2025

August 1, 2025

 

NOTICE

Beginning September 2, 2025, in Pennsylvania, medical fee review applications will be required to be submitted electronically in WCAIS. Pease reach out to any of our Pennsylvania attorneys if you have questions.

 

RESULTS*

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) was successful in having a Petition to Determine Compensation Due, asserting a different date of injury, dismissed. The Industrial Accident Board denied the claimant’s Motion to Amend a Petition to reflect a different date of loss because the amendment was made more than two years from the date of the alleged work accident. The pending petition was dismissed, and any new petition with the “corrected” date of loss was barred by the statute of limitations.

Robin Romano, and Michael McMaster on brief (both of Philadelphia, PA), were successful in having a Claim Petition denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged she was hurt when a customer’s car backed into her on purpose. The claimant was later terminated from employment for belligerence to the customer. The employer’s surveillance video showed that the car barely made contact with the claimant. Fact witness testimony by the employer’s district manager, authenticating the footage and detailing the reasons for her termination, plus the testimony of two defense medical experts, convinced the workers’ compensation judge that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Robert Schenk (Philadelphia, PA) was successful in having a Claim Petition denied. The claimant alleged he sustained an injury to his right elbow when he tripped and fell at work. The workers’ compensation judge denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim, finding no injury or disability. In doing so, the judge noted that the claimant’s testimony as to how he was injured was completely inconsistent with video from the employer’s workplace. The claimant’s testimony was basically that a pallet jack violently hit him and threw him to the floor, causing his injuries. The video showed the claimant tripping over a pallet jack. It also showed him getting up and continuing to work

Audrey Copeland and Tony Natale (both of King of Prussia, PA) convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in favor of our client, the employer, which upheld the workers’ compensation judge’s denial of a Claim Petition. By Memorandum Opinion, the court found that the judge’s credibility findings were neither contradictory nor arbitrary and capricious and that the decision was reasoned. The court agreed with the employer that the defense experts’ opinions constituted substantial evidence, also noting that the Social Security Administration’s findings of disability were irrelevant to the issue of work-relatedness. The court concluded that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving a work-related injury, and since the causal connection between her “lingering symptoms and her work duties” was not obvious, she was required to present unequivocal medical evidence establishing that connection, which she failed to do. 

Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) received a significant positive outcome at trial. The petitioner sustained a significant injury in July 2013 and later filed a claim for permanent/total disability benefits. Given the petitioner’s age and the exposure of the case, had the petitioner been successful at trial, he would have received more than 26 years of benefits; an indemnity exposure of $556,000. Prior to trial, the petitioner refused to accept any settlement offer below permanent/total disability benefits. Trial began on July 8, 2025, with the petitioner’s testimony. Following the petitioner’s testimony, the judge dismissed the petitioner’s claim for permanent/total disability benefits and recommended a partial disability settlement, which equated to approximately $57,000 in total exposure, which the petitioner accepted. 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 65-year-old, 35+ year employee of a renowned international automobile corporation who sustained a left knee injury on June 19, 2023. Michele secured medical records that support a significant pre-existing history—with a prior left knee replacement and treatment leading up to June 1, 2023—and resulted in establishing that the only work injury sustained was a left knee contusion. Further, the opinions of the defense medical expert, a board certified orthopedic surgeon with a sub-specialty in the treatment of the knees, were found competent and credible, supporting a full recovery based upon his comprehensive physical examination and his review of records and diagnostic studies. The workers’ compensation judge further found the employer had a reasonable basis to contest all issues and denied attorney’s fees. Such a decision will result in a substantial recoupment of indemnity and benefits payments made throughout the course of the litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement recovery. 

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Penalty Petition filed which alleged that Supreme Court precedent allows the finding of a penalty when a carrier does not immediately issue an award check after a decision on the merits. The check was issued 19 days after the decision (and within the 30-day time period commonly accepted in the business for payment of awards). The claimant argued that payment should have been made within one day of the award. The case turned on legal precedent concerning the efficacy of statements made in dicta versus common sense practice. The case held implications for procedure on payments of awards in Pennsylvania. After hearing oral argument, the court held that the employer’s argument was more logical and supported by the preponderance of the case law. The Penalty Petition was denied and dismissed by way of complete defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a Claim Petition filed by the claimant, a police officer for the township. The claimant was called to the scene of an active shooter barricaded in his home. The officer was placed in a strategic position outside the home with weapon drawn. The standoff lasted many hours but was resolved peacefully when SWAT arrived. The claimant finished his shift and went home. The next morning he awoke with headaches, nausea, double vision and dizziness. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with mini-stroke, nerve palsy and resultant diplopia—he was disabled from working. He presented a neurologist whose deposition was riddled with objections since the neurologist tried to read into the record (and at times misread into the record) the diagnoses of a neuro-ophthalmologist. The neurologist then tried to argue that the claimant’s condition was a psychological injury in origin. All objections were sustained by the court. The employer presented the opinions of a board certified neuro-ophthalmologist, who opined that the claimant has no work-related injury. The court found the employer’s evidence to be more believable, and the claim petition was dismissed—full defense verdict.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

NEWS

Blake Hood (Jacksonville, FL) was recently appointed as co-chair of the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Social Security/Workers’ Compensation Committee. 

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) was recently elected by his peers to serve a two-year term as a Council Member on the Allegheny County Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Section Committee. 

William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) authored the article “Medical Marijuana in New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law,” which appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal’s Cannabis Supplement published on July 11. The article discusses developments since the 2021 Hager decision (Vincent Hager v. M&K Construction, 246 N.J. 1 (2021) and recent shifts in the legal landscape as state and federal laws have evolved with regard to medical marijuana. You can read the article here.

Elias Hassinger (Philadelphia, PA) recently participated in the firm’s Advanced Trial Advocacy and Mock Trial program. This year marked the 25th anniversary of our cornerstone training program that brings together attorneys from across our 19 offices to try a full civil case in our in-house courtroom. Participants gain invaluable experience under the guidance of senior litigators and alumni. Congratulations to Eli and all of this year’s participants for a job well done! 

 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 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. 

News

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.