.
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. 4, April 2026

April 1, 2026

RESULTS*

Perry Merlo (Harrisburg) successfully obtained a defense decision in a workers’ compensation matter. The claimant alleged she was wrongfully terminated due to a workplace injury, and filed a claim petition demanding $95,000. During testimony, it was revealed that the claimant did not report her alleged work injury until after the employer terminated her for falsifying her time records. Additionally, five employer witnesses testified that the claimant never reported a work injury and was working her full duty job until she was fired for cause. Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed the claim petition.  

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict involving a claim petition alleging a complex tear of the medial meniscus in the knee after being injured walking down a hallway in the police station. We argued that a medical condition arising during employment is not necessarily related to employment itself. We presented medical evidence from an orthopedic surgeon who found no mechanism of injury other than the claimant being present at the job when symptoms began. Additionally, we presented video evidence of the incident taking place, which the court analyzed, finding no evidence of physical injury. The court concluded that injuries that arise at work are not necessarily work related – a defense verdict that will change the landscape of law.

Tony also successfully defended a claim petition which was denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged a work injury after her chair exploded due to her body habitus, causing her to fall to the ground. She claimed to have sustained various injuries and periods of disability. During a critical cross examination, the claimant’s medical expert admitted that there was no evidence of a work-related injury in the medical records generated nearly one year following the incident. Additionally, the expert admitted that the claimant was capable of full work duty. The court had no choice but to deny and dismiss the claim petition, forming a complete defense verdict.

Eric Thompson (Wilmington) successfully defended a claim before the Delaware Department of Labor Industrial Accident Board. The claimant had a history of respiratory illnesses which she alleged were managed through treatment until she was assigned to work in a specific building by the employer. She alleged that her symptoms became worse as a result of working in the building. The employer had a mold study performed, which showed the existence of mold in various places in the building, but that the mold concentrations were less than those in the external ambient air. Nevertheless, the claimant alleged the mold exposure from the building exacerbated her respiratory conditions. The Industrial Accident Board found our expert to be more credible that the claimant’s, who argued that an employer is strictly liable for exacerbations of conditions of its employees even if it does not know about them. Following a two-day hearing, the board found that the claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing more likely than not her respiratory conditions were caused by exposure to mold in the building, denying her petition for compensation due.

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) obtained a defense verdict, successfully having claim and penalty petitions denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged a work injury when she tripped over a pallet and fell onto her left knee during the course and scope of her employment. The claimant delayed treatment, first seeking treatment approximately one month after the incident at work. We presented employer witnesses and evidence, establishing that the claimant’s orthopedic issues, including knee surgery, were unrelated to the fall at work. The court agreed, finding that the claimant did not have any symptoms following the incident and that the medical expert we presented showed that the claimant only sustained a contusion to the knee following the incident at work.

Andrew Maffett (Harrisburg) was successful in having a workers’ compensation claim demanding a settlement of $165,000 denied. The claimant filed two claim petitions alleging a work injury involving his cervical spine in September 2022, and a work injury to the lumbar spine in May 2024. The petitions sought payment of full disability benefits from September 2022 to November 2023, partial disability benefits from November 2023 to May 2024, total disability benefits from May 2024 and ongoing, medical bills, and counsel feels. The judge denied the petitions and the claimant was not awarded any workers’ compensation benefits, litigation costs, or attorney fees.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome

NEWS

Kiara Hartwell has been selected as a 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star for Workers’ Compensation (Mount Laurel). As a Shareholder of the Workers' Compensation Department, Kiara devotes the entirety of her practice to workers' compensation litigation on behalf of employers, insurance carriers and self-insureds. She authors the New Jersey updates for the firm’s monthly newsletter, What's Hot In Workers' Comp, and she has been published in CLM Magazine. Kiara is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Executive Committee, a group charged with studying and developing beneficial changes in the administration and procedures pertaining to workers' compensation.

A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

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/

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.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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

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

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

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.