Workers' Compensation

NEWS

Marshall Dennehey selected a "Best Place to Work" by the Philadelphia Business Journal for the ninth year in a row. The award recognizes the company's achievements in creating a positive work environment that attracts and retains employees through a combination of benefits, working conditions and company culture. Marshall Dennehey has been recognized as a “Best Place to Work” every year since 2013, winning the extra large company category in 2020, 2019 and 2017. Hundreds of companies submitted nominations to the program, which ranks the top employers according to scores given to the companies by their own workers. Marshall Dennehey's Delaware Valley locations, including its Philadelphia headquarters and offices in King of Prussia and Mount Laurel, New Jersey, were included in the survey.

 

RESULTS*

Ben Durstein (Wilmington, DE) won on appeal where the Superior Court affirmed a decision of the Industrial Accident Board that denied a claimant’s petition for a recurrence of total disability benefits due to a worsening of her complex regional pain syndrome. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s ultimate determination and preference for the medical expert and vocational expert opinions of the employer over those of the claimant’s experts.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition where he alleged full recovery and defended a claim that the claimant’s modified duties allowed him to perform his pre-injury job. In another matter, Tony successfully prosecuted a suspension and termination petition on factual and medical evidence. The matter was appealed, and the Appeal Board found for the defendant.

Michael Sebastian (Scranton, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition and defended a review petition. He also successfully defended a claim petition that alleged a work-related hernia. His defense expert found the claimant fully recovered, and the court agreed. In a third matter, Michael successfully prosecuted a termination petition supporting full recovery and an employment discharge for cause. Finally, he successfully defended an appeal, alleging that the claimant did not provide notice of the hernia within 120 days. The Appeal Board reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s finding that the claimant did not provide notice that the hernia was work-related.

Judd Woytek (Allentown) successfully defeated a claim petition and obtained a termination of benefits. The claimant’s injury was accepted as a foot contusion for medical benefits only. The claimant claimed much more severe injuries and sought wage loss benefits after his termination from employment. Judd successfully argued that the injury was limited to a contusion from which the claimant had recovered and that his termination was for cause. The Workers’ Compensation Judge denied the claim petition and granted our termination petition.

Judd also successfully obtained withdrawal of a claim petition based upon jurisdiction. The claimant was a truck driver who lived in Delaware. The injury occurred in Tennessee where the employer is based. The claimant had attended orientation at the employer’s facility in Pennsylvania, but was not hired there or directed out of that location. Judd was able to convince claimant’s counsel to withdraw the claim petition based upon lack of jurisdiction for a claim in Pennsylvania.

Judd, along with Audrey Copeland (Philadelphia, PA) in our appellate group, obtained a favorable decision from the Commonwealth Court in a case involving a pre-Protz Impairment Rating Evaluation. The claimant had stipulated to a change in his benefit status from total to partial based upon an IRE performed in 2014. After Protz, the claimant sought reinstatement of total disability status. The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the claimant’s petition and reinstated temporary total disability status as of the date the claimant had filed his petition in 2018. The Appeal Board affirmed. The Commonwealth Court, however, agreed with Judd and Audrey’s arguments that the claimant was not entitled to reinstatement to total disability status because he had stipulated to the change in his disability status. The court held that the claimant was bound by the stipulation despite the intervening change in the law.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome

 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, 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.}