Workers' Compensation

We received a defense verdict on a claim petition in a case where the claimant sustained a shoulder injury during the course and scope of employment. The employer brought the claimant back to work, to a light-duty driving position that caused a limited loss of wages (for about 1.5 months). They then allowed the claimant to earn his pre-injury wages. The job was so light that the claimant was found sleeping in the employer’s truck during work hours. He was discharged for cause. After the claimant secured new employment with another company at lower wages, he alleged he was entitled to ongoing partial disability. The subsequent claim petition turned on the facts surrounding the discharge as being the real cause for the disability. The business record exception to the hearsay rule was dissected by the court, and the claim petition was dismissed based on the employer’s legally admissible fact and medical witness testimony.

We received a defense verdict on our termination petition in a case where the claimant sustained a low back injury when he slipped and fell in an elevator during his employment. The employer had an IME wherein the claimant was pronounced fully recovered from strain injuries. The claimant presented evidence that alleged disc injury and ongoing radiculopathy. The matter proceeded to litigation and a decision on the merits. The court found the employer’s expert to be credible as to full recovery based on the finding that no architectural change could be identified between the claimant’s diagnostic studies when compared to studies from before and after the work injury.

We received a favorable decision that saved our client millions of dollars. The claimant filed a claim petition alleging he sustained a left shoulder dislocation, stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome and post-traumatic seizures as a result of a fall at work. After the claimant fell at work and sustained a left shoulder dislocation, he went to the hospital for the dislocation, was treated and discharged. Four days later he sustained a stroke at home. He had multiple surgeries and was hospitalized for four months. He is severely disabled as a result of the stroke and requires full-time care. The claimant initially alleged he sustained a head injury from the fall at work which caused the stroke. He claimed he was bleeding from his nose and mouth and had a laceration to his forehead. We were able to show that did not occur by presenting fact witnesses who established the claimant fell off one step, never hit his head, was not bleeding from his head or face, only dislocated his shoulder, and was discharged home without issue. Claimant’s counsel then alleged the claimant’s stroke was related to a spike in his high blood pressure that placed him in a hypertensive crisis resulting in the stroke. We showed that the claimant had unregulated high blood pressure before the work injury and that he was released from the hospital with high blood pressure, but not enough to be in hypertensive crisis. The judge agreed with our arguments, finding that the claimant only sustained the agreed-upon shoulder dislocation. Therefore, the claimant was awarded one day of wage loss benefits for the shoulder dislocation. The stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome, and post traumatic seizures were denied and dismissed. As the claimant is only 48 years old and his compensation rate resulted in $30,000 a year wage loss benefit, wage loss for the rest of his life would likely have been around $1 million. The claimant’s medical costs were going to be much higher as he requires round-the-clock care, which over his lifetime would have cost millions. His hospital bills alone were over $1 million, and claimant’s counsel would have argued for home modifications and vehicle modifications. Instead, the claimant will receive a one-day payment of about $88.

The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) granted our petition to terminate the ongoing receipt of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits on the basis that the claimant had voluntarily removed himself from the workforce. The claimant was a correction officer who suffered head injuries in an altercation with an inmate. He was out of work for a time and eventually released to return to work on modified duty. His restrictions were permanent and, because they could not be accommodated by his employer, he was placed on TPD. After more than a year with no indication of an attempt to return to the workforce, we challenged his ongoing entitlement to receive TPD. We worked with the employer to obtain documentation regarding the claimant’s job search (or lack thereof), other sources of income (pension, Social Security) and recreational/social activities since he had been separated from employment. In addition, we put forward both medical and vocational expert testimony at the hearing. As a result, the IAB reasoned that the claimant was able to work in a medium-duty job, that jobs were available within his restrictions, the he had conducted a minimal job search since his work release more than a year and a half earlier, and that his description of his daily activities was consistent with a person content with a retirement lifestyle rather than someone who intended to continue to work. Accordingly, he was no longer entitled to wage replacement benefits.

We were successful in having our petition to terminate the ongoing receipt of temporary partial disability benefits granted on the basis that the claimant had voluntarily removed himself from the workforce. The Industrial Accident Board reasoned that the claimant was able to work in a medium-duty job, that jobs were available within his restrictions, the he had conducted a minimal job search since his work release more than a year and a half earlier, and that his description of his daily activities was consistent with a person content with a retirement lifestyle rather than someone who intended to continue to work. Accordingly, he was no longer entitled to wage replacement benefits.

We successfully had the claimant’s claim and penalty petitions denied by proving the alleged injury occurred much later than claimed. The claimant, a technical operator responsible for shaping and packing cheese, alleged that he suffered a left shoulder tear with internal derangement, requiring surgery, as a result of using a long stick-like tool to dislodge cheese that had gotten stuck in a machine during the production process. The claimant asserted that he provided timely notice of his work-related injury to his supervisor; within a few days after the injury occurred. Through cross examination, the claimant admitted that he provided notice of his injury four or five months after the alleged injury occurred. Through employer witness testimony, we were also able to show that, while the claimant did leave early on the day of the alleged injury, the reason was because he was sick, and there was no written documentation to support notice being provided in a timely manner. Through medical expert testimony, we were also able to establish that the claimant’s injury likely occurred on a later date than the one alleged, based upon the medical evidence showing that the bicep did not show any signs of retraction 10 months after the alleged injury date. The workers’ compensation judge found the defendant’s expert testimony more credible than the claimant’s medical expert. The claimant’s claim petition seeking temporary total disability benefits and his penalty petition were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant.

We were successful in having a motion for indemnification granted. Our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by the statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable, providing medical and indemnity benefits and reaching a settlement compromise with the injured worker. We filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing was held, where we presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted our motion.

We successfully defended a multinational food corporation in a workers’ compensation case. We filed a suspension petition based upon the claimant’s employment prior to being taken out of work. The claimant filed a reinstatement petition for a right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) claim and a claim petition for the left CTS claim. The claimant also filed UR petitions related to her treatment with Dr. Mercado and Dr. Patel. Prior to the decision, we accepted left-sided CTS as work related. The issue to be decided by the workers’ compensation judge was whether the claimant was entitled to a reinstatement of benefits because the job required her to work in a cold environment. In the decision, the judge noted that when the claimant was working she did not have to touch the cold meat which was on a conveyor belt. She also wore gloves and cold weather clothing while performing the position. The judge noted that Dr. Martinez did not know the temperature of the claimant’s hands with gloves on nor did he know the temperature of the plant. He also noted that Dr. Martinez testified that if the claimant’s hand temperature with gloves on was between 70-80 degrees, that should be acceptable. The judge noted that the employer’s witness testified to an experiment measuring hand temperature with gloves on: her hand temperature with the glove on was initially 87 degrees and after roughly 3 hours on the floor, it was 75 degrees. Dr. Talsania testified that cold temperature does not affect CTS. The judge found the claimant’s testimony and Dr. Martinez’s testimony not credible. The judge found the employer’s witness and Dr. Talsania credible in all respects. She also found the UR reports credible concerning the claimant’s treatment. The judge suspended the claimant’s benefits effective May 23, 2024, finding she was capable of performing the quality monitor position in the cold environment. 

We won a defense verdict on a penalty petition filed by the claimant against a mushroom company. In the penalty petition, the claimant 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. 

We won a defense verdict on 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 filed a claim petition and presented a neurologist to support a work injury. This doctor’s 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. 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.

We 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. We secured medical records supporting a significant pre-existing history—with a prior left knee replacement and treatment leading up to June 1, 2023—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, thus 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.

We 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 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.

We successfully defended a claim for permanent/total disability benefits and significantly lowered our client’s exposure. Given the petitioner’s age and the exposure of the case, our client faced a potential indemnity exposure of more than $500,000. Prior to trial, the petitioner refused to accept any settlement offer below permanent/total disability benefits. Following the petitioner’s testimony at trial, the judge dismissed the claim for permanent/total disability benefits and recommended a partial disability settlement, which equated to approximately $57,000 (only 10% of the potential cost) in total exposure, which was accepted by the petitioner.  

We received an opinion from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirming the decision granting our termination petition. The employer had accepted an “upper back area” injury through a Notice of Compensation Payable. Prior to issuing the NCP, the employer secured an IME, where the doctor ultimately opined that the claimant was fully recovered from a lumbar sprain. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was fully recovered from the work injury based upon the credible opinions of the employer’s medical expert. The claimant appealed, arguing the termination was improper as the IME occurred before the NCP was issued; therefore, the change in condition needed to occur after the NCP. Additionally, the claimant argued the termination was improper as the IME doctor found a different injury than the injury noted on the NCP. The Appeal Board opined that the employer sustained its burden of proof as its expert’s testimony constituted substantial evidence, sufficient in nature to meet its burden of proof. The Appeal Board further found that since the employer was not disputing an injury occurred, it was not attempting to re-litigate whether the claimant sustained a work injury. Rather, it was disputing whether the claimant was still disabled. The Appeal Board further opined that the claimant’s expert evaluated the whole back and that the credible evidence revealed the claimant was fully recovered.

We secured a complete defense victory, saving our client over $500,000 in known exposure and likely millions in long-term liability. The workers’ compensation judge granted our termination petition and denied the claimant’s claim petition, finding that the claimant fully recovered and was not entitled to wage loss or medical benefits. Through medical discovery, we uncovered pre-injury treatment that directly contradicted the claimant’s testimony. The judge favored our medical expert, citing no changes on pre- and post-injury MRIs as further evidence undermining the claim.

We successfully defended a township in Bucks County in the litigation of a fatal claim petition. The widow made an allegation that the decedent (a police K-9 officer) died in his home as a result of exercising with his police dog before heading to work. The fatal claim petition alleged that the decedent died of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy brought on by “vigorous exercise.” The widow presented an expert who held himself out to be a cardiologist. We established during voir dire examination that the expert had no Board Certification in cardiology. We also forced the expert to admit that cardiomyopathy was a pre-existing condition that, in a vast majority of cases, causes death without exertional activity. The widow testified in the matter, but on cross examination she could not confirm the decedent’s exercise because she was asleep at the time. The widow presented a detective and a police chief who asserted that the decedent was in the course and scope of employment at or near the time of death, but both witnesses on cross examination were not present on the morning of the decedent’s death and could not verify that the decedent was undertaking exertional activities. We presented a Board Certified cardiologist who testified that cardiomyopathy is a hereditary condition and not caused or aggravated by activities. The decedent’s death was, therefore, characterized as death by natural causes. The court delivered a full defense verdict in dismissing the fatal claim in its entirety.

Lela Eke received a Dismiss Without Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution, after filing a Motion to Dismiss in response to numerous discovery requests that remained unanswered. At the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel was unable to provide an explanation for the delay. We argued that keeping the case open to give them more time to respond to our discovery and Motion would be prejudicial against us, and the Court granted our Motion. Jessica Gordon received a dismissal for lack of prosecution in a case where the claim was denied with ongoing request for medical treatment, but there had been no report from the Petitioner to support the request and no demand was made in lieu of litigation. William Murphy successfully obtained an order for dismissal for a claim involving a workplace assault. In the case, the Petitioner alleged injuries to their neck, back, chest, and right hand following an assault at work. After the Petitioner missed multiple independent medical exams scheduled by the employer, we filed a motion to dismiss this claim for lack of prosecution. The judge of compensation granted the motion. Rachel Ramsay-Lowe was successful in defending a case where the Petitioner was not complying with discovery requests and did not appear for Respondent’s permanency evaluation. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and the Court entered the dismissal Order. Kristy Salvitti was successful in obtaining an Order for Dismissal where the  Petitioner had filed a Reopener of a Clam Petition relative to a prior permanency award arguing that disability to his right shoulder, thoracic and lumbar spine had increased to permanent and total disability. If successful, Petitioner would receive lifetime related medical treatment and 450 weeks to life of his temporary total disability rate.  However, following oral argument that Petitioner failed to timely prosecute the claim, the Reopener Petitioner was dismissed.

We successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of one of the world’s leading suppliers of equipment and services to packaging and label manufacturers. The claimant was helping to lift a 400-pound slab when she felt her shoulder “pop.” She continued to work for several months, allegedly in pain, until she could no longer work. After vigorous cross examination, the claimant was forced to admit that she provided notice 122 days after the date of injury—which is untimely by the letter of the law. The claimant then asserted that her injury was “repetitive trauma,” arguing that each day she worked after the original incident caused a new injury. Both parties presented medical experts. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical expert dispelled the claimant’s theory of compensability. The court required that the parties engage in mandatory mediation. The claimant declined, noting that “she wanted her day in court,” and then changed attorneys. The court dismissed the claim petition on the bases of violation of notice provisions of the Act and on the lack of credibility of the medical expert presented.

We successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of a Philadelphia-based university. While working for the university as a janitor, the claimant slipped and fell down a flight of concrete stairs. He alleged multiple body part injuries, from head to toe. The employer’s panel doctor did find 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, during the expert’s trial deposition, he 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 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).

We successfully defended a Massachusetts-based insurance company in a bitter dispute with the federal government regarding a Medicare conditional lien request. The insurance carrier’s satellite office is based out of New Jersey, and the underlying claim involved an injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident with payments being made to the claimant under a New Jersey PIP policy. The carrier exhausted the PIP policy following the injury. Medicare also paid significant medical bills for the claimant and demanded through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that the carrier reimburse all payments made as a conditional lien request. CMS, through their many contractors, threatened legal action with double damages if the lien was not satisfied. The carrier appealed the lien request through two levels of CMS contactors with no success. We formulated a third-level appeal to an administrative law judge, arguing that CMS’s request for additional liens violated state PIP policy law and the carrier’s constitutional rights. Evidence presented showed the PIP policy had been exhausted and, thus, the carrier reverted back to a secondary payer, forcing Medicare/CMS as the primary payer under federal law. The court agreed and a full defense verdict was issued.   

We successfully contested a claimant’s request for authorization for a van equipped with a wheelchair lift, arguing it was not a medical necessity following a work-related injury. Testimony revealed the claimant’s significant mobility challenges were due to a work-related traumatic brain injury and spastic hemiplegia. However, the employer/carrier contested the request, asserting it was neither reasonable nor medically necessary based on the authorized treating physician’s assessment. Ultimately, the judge of compensation claims found the claimant did not meet the burden of proof to establish the necessity of the van, siding with the employer/carrier’s argument, and denied the authorization request along with the claims for attorney’s fees and costs.

We 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. 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 turned into full-fledged fisticuffs. The pugilists both were injured in the brawl. The claimant filed a claim petition, alleging physical injuries, post-concussive syndrome, mental injuries and total disability. We cross examined the claimant and developed an evidence record that supported she was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury. We presented medical witnesses to support that the claimant did not suffer from post-concussive syndrome or any disabling physical or mental injuries. The court found the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment, and the claim was barred by the personal animus defense.  

We secured a complete defense verdict in a first-of-its-kind workers’ compensation case, where 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.  In a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, we successfully defended a Berks County mushroom canning facility from a claim petition alleging repetitive trauma injuries to the upper extremities. The claimant alleged that over time his duties as a machine operator caused nerve injuries to both upper extremities. We presented medical expert testimony supporting the existence of these nerve damage but challenged causation. In a modified Frye challenge to claimant’s medical expert opinions, we 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 our expert testimony opinions to outweigh the claimant’s expert 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. This was a complete defense verdict.   

We received a decision denying a claim petition that alleged the claimant suffered a work-related cervical injury on June 29, 2023. The claimant testified that he felt a snap but did not feel the pain right away and continued to work until July 17, 2023. 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, 2023. Dr. Martinez, the claimant’s expert, testified the claimant was a partial quadriplegic in the upper and lower extremities. Dr. Henderson, our 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. 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 his demeanor during the hearing was not credible and 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 that subsequent treatment notes indicate the injury or condition pre-dated the June 29, 2023, work injury date.   

We successfully defended against two review petitions in a case in which the client had accepted the claim as a right shoulder injury. As the claimant was lowering a trailer to a hitch, the trailer fell a few inches, causing the hand crank to spin and jerk the claimant’s shoulder. The claimant filed a review petition seeking to expand the description of injury to include orthopedic injuries (described as a cervical herniation at C6-7, a protrusion at T2-3, and multilevel disc bulges between C2-C6, cervical radiculopathy, lumbar strain/sprain, right frozen shoulder, right brachial plexopathy) and psychiatric injuries (described as somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression). The claimant’s second review petition sought to increase his average weekly wage to include an expectant rate based on his communications with his dispatcher about potentially working more hours in the future. We argued the claimant did not seek treatment for the additional injuries until months after the work injury. With regard to the psychiatric injuries, we argued the claimant’s expert did not have a full understanding of the claimant’s past and did not discuss his prior substance abuse issues, familial/marital issues, or how he had dealt with prior workers’ compensation injuries. Furthermore, through cross examination, the claimant conceded he did not really understand what psychiatric treatment he was receiving. The workers’ compensation judge found the employer’s orthopedic and psychiatric experts more credible and persuasive than the claimant’s; therefore, the judge did not expand the injury to include the cervical, lumbar and psychiatric diagnoses. Additionally, the judge found there was no evidence to support a higher average weekly wage and compensation rate as the claimant’s wages reflected what he actually earned.   

We secured a decision denying a claimant wage loss benefits for an accepted work injury. The claimant sustained a left wrist contusion and extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) peri-tendonitis injury when a 50-pound lid crushed his left arm in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant alleged that as a result of the injury, he was unable to perform light-duty work as a system operator. Through medical evidence, we were able to establish that the claimant had medical issues unrelated to the accepted work injury that were the cause of his inability to work. The workers’ compensation judge found our expert testimony more credible than that of the claimant’s medical expert. Wage loss benefits were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant/employer.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in litigation surrounding a penalty petition filed by the claimant. The penalty alleged that the university unilaterally suspended indemnity benefits on an open and accepted work injury claim. We presented complex evidence from the insurer that Pennsylvania’s Workers' Compensation Automation and Integration System (WCAIS) electronic system has internal problems which result in unwanted and unrequested claim documents being issued when simple data changes are made to an open claim. We were able to prove that the carrier properly suspended the claim in the system and any and all updated “acceptance” documents filed by the WCAIS system were on the basis of a faulty data system. The penalty petition was dismissed in its entirety.

We secured a decision denying the claimant wage loss benefits for an accepted work injury. The claimant sustained a left wrist contusion and extensor carpi ulnaris peri-tendonitis injury when a 50-pound lid crushed his left arm in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant alleged that, as a result of the injury, he was unable to perform light-duty work as a system operator. Through medical evidence, we were able to establish that the claimant had non-work-related medical issues unrelated to the accepted work injury that caused him to be out of work. Wage loss benefits were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant.

We successfully defended a Pennsylvania-based industrial linear actuator supplier on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant appealed a termination order which found her to be fully recovered from work injuries to her low back and multiple other body parts. The claimant alleged on appeal that factors considered by the underlying workers’ compensation judge supporting the full recovery opinion (including a post-injury new slip and fall) were not supported by the evidence record. To the contrary, we successfully argued on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge’s decision was based on cross examination of the claimant’s own medical expert wherein he gleaned a history from the claimant of subsequent injuries that were never disputed by the claimant in follow-up testimony. The Appeal Board held that the judge can only decide cases based on evidence before the court, and the Board would not overturn the judge based on new allegations of the claimant.

We obtained orders for dismissal, with prejudice, where four New Jersey medical providers alleged they were entitled to additional monies for medical treatment provided in New Jersey to a New York resident. The underlying accident involved a laborer who resided in New York, worked in New York and sustained the injuries in New York. Four medical providers filed medical provider claims against the employer in New Jersey, seeking more than $800,000 from the employer for treatment rendered in relation to this accident. We filed motions to dismiss these claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting there were insufficient contacts with the state of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The judge of compensation ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the four medical providers’ applications with prejudice.