.
Workers' Compensation

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

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

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 30, No. 3, March 2026

March 1, 2026

RESULTS*

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) was successfully granted a termination petition in a workers’ compensation matter in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained an ankle injury while working with her employer, and she was relegated to modified duty. She worked up to near full duty capacity, however, she alleged that she could not walk up the stairs as a permanent restriction. We presented medical expert onions from a podiatric surgeon, who determined the claimant to be fully recovered, casting serious doubt on the claimant’s self-imposed permanent restriction of walking up the stairs. We filed a termination petition, which the court granted, holding that the claimant was not credible, finding a preponderance of evidence supporting a full recovery.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) was successful in being granted a termination petition before the Pittsburgh Bureau of Workers Compensation. The claimant sustained injuries to the wrist and elbows, for which he received consistent treatment and surgery. Upon completion of post-surgical care, the claimant alleged that he was not fully recovered from the injuries, expressing severe pain in his thumb. We filed a termination petition based on the opinions of a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon who highlighted that the claimant recovered from original injuries, and the thumb joint injuries were due to arthritis and had no causal connection to the work injury. The court agreed with our argument, granting a full recovery.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) was successfully granted a termination petition in a workers’ compensation matter in Bristol, Pennsylvania. We presented evidence, including medical records and expert medical opinions, highlighting that the pre-existing history limited the nature of the accepted injury by a Stipulation of Fact. Our expert witness, a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon who examined the claimant on two separate occasions, emphasized that the claimant made a full recovery based on a comprehensive physical examination, review of medial records revealing no post-traumatic findings, and a significant improvement in the claimant’s capabilities requiring no further treatment or restrictions. The court granted our petition, resulting in a substantial recoupment of payments of both indemnity and medical benefits.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) was successful in having a termination petition granted in a workers’ compensation matter in Philadelphia. The matter involved a long-term housekeeping aide of a well-known local hospital, who sustained an injury to the lower back in October 2024. The claimant had a prior injury to her knee in May 2022, and then to both knees in December 2025. The claimant’s treatment following the October 2024 incident included x-rays, an MRI, an EMG, and treatment with an orthopedic specialist, chiropractor, and pain management specialist. All of the providers documented ongoing complaints of pain with radiation, difficulty sitting and standing for more than 20 to 25 minutes, and only being able to walk between two to three blocks. We presented the diagnostic study films and a medical expert who emphasized that the findings of the claimant’s doctors did not correlate to the mechanism of the work injury or any post-traumatic findings. In addition, while the claimant’s providers diagnosed radiculopathy, objective findings did not exist to support that ongoing diagnosis, and the claimant’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the physical exam. The diagnostic studies failed to demonstrate findings of, but not limited to, any acute disc herniations. We filed a termination petition, which was ultimately granted. This decision will result in substantial recoupment of payments of both indemnity and medical benefits throughout the course of litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Recovery.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

NEWS

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) has been named one of four finalists nationwide for the 2026 CLM Professional of the Year Award in the Outside Counsel category. This prestigious national recognition honors an attorney who demonstrates exceptional commitment to claims and litigation management through thought leadership, mentorship, innovative practices, and meaningful contributions to the CLM community.  All finalists will be recognized, and the winner announced, during the opening session of the CLM Annual Conference in Orlando this March.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

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.