WHAT’S HOT IN WORKERS’ COMP - NEWS AND RESULTS*
NEWS
On Friday, May 19, Linda Wagner Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) participated in the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims’ (Orlando District Office) Workers’ Compensation Academy 2023 CLE. Linda discussed “Evidence and Trial Memorandum.”
William Murphy’s (Roseland, NJ) article “The Implications of Remote Work on Workers’ Compensation” was published in the June 6, 2023, edition of New Jersey Law Journal. You can read his article here.
Tony Natale’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Why Do Claimants Lie? Because They Can and Swift Prosecution Is the Only Way to Deter It” appeared in the June 2023 issue of CLM Magazine. You can read Tony’s article here.
RESULTS*
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a multinational manufacturing corporation. He presented medical evidence, including a record review of all diagnostic study films and medical records from a Board-certified physiatrist, to establish that the claimant’s physiological complaints were unrelated to a work injury. The judge accepted the evidence as fully competent, persuasive and credible, and, as a result, terminated the claimant’s benefits
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of a Chester County vision center. The claimant alleged horrific injuries to her head, neck, low back and lower extremities secondary to a motor vehicle accident while on her lunch hour. The resultant medical and indemnity exposure was astronomical. The claimant had left the employer’s premises to buy lunch at a local fast food restaurant. She led the court to believe that she was injured while returning to the employer’s premises after exiting from the restaurant drive-through window. On cross examination, the claimant was forced to admit that after leaving the fast food restaurant, she actually travelled in the opposite direction of the employer’s office, stopped at a local gas station and ran errands. Tony successfully argued that, despite the seriousness of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury. The claim petition was dismissed in its entirety.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully concluded a number of cases as follows:
• Judd defended from the claimant’s appeal from the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The judge approved the claimant’s claim for a fifth metatarsal fracture for a closed period of time although terminated benefits as of the date of our IME. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
• Judd successfully defended a claim petition, where the judge found that the claimant suffered only a lumbar strain and was disabled only for six weeks. The Judge then terminated benefits as of the date of our IME.
• Judd successfully defended the claimant’s appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, who denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim petition for an alleged left knee injury. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
• Judd successfully defended a claim petition where the claimant alleged severe neurologic injuries from a slip and fall on ice. The claimant alleged issues with his speech, vision and balance. His treating physician diagnosed a concussion with post-concussion syndrome and cervicalgia resulting in gait, visual and speech dysfunction, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sensitivity to light and sound, and difficulty walking. The judge limited the injury to a scalp contusion and traumatic Bell’s Palsy, awarded less than 11 weeks’ of benefits, and terminated benefits as of our IME.
• Judd successfully obtained a termination of benefits for an accepted right hand, left knee and lumbar spine injuries. The judge credited the opinions of our IME physician and terminated benefits.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 6, June 2023, 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 © 2023 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.