What's Hot in Workers' Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
Congratulations to Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) for her recent recertification by The Florida Bar in Workers’ Compensation. Board Certification is the highest level of evaluation by The Florida Bar of the competency and experience of attorneys in workers’ compensation.
Kelly Scifres (Jacksonville, FL) authored the article “Tips for Avoiding Stop-Work Orders” which appeared in the Jacksonville Daily Record.
Bob Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) authored “Workers’ Comp Update: The NJ Supreme Court One Again Affirms an Employers’ Subrogation Rights” for the New Jersey Defense Magazine.
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition and petition to review a Utilization Review determination on behalf of a Philadelphia-based transportation authority. The case has direct impact on the workers’ compensation system since the termination petition dealt with the issue of a “piecemeal” full recovery—a petition seemingly banned by recent case law. The UR review petition dealt with the systemic flaws in the UR process, which resulted in a collateral attack on a previous judge’s decision regarding reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment. The judge opined that the claimant fully recovered from a work-related knee injury and post-injury surgery, despite part of the meniscus in the knee now being missing. Tony successfully argued that the missing piece of meniscus did not functionally impair the injured worker. Moreover, Tony convinced the court that a partial termination of benefits is proper in this scenario because the original petition was filed only to the claimant’s knee injury and extricated itself from any additional compensable injuries. The judge also agreed that the UR determination issued in the matter collaterally attacked a previous judge’s decision on the issue of reasonableness of chiropractic treatment. The decision exposed the problem of final decisions of the judge on reasonableness of medical treatment being attacked by the UR process when an injured worker switches treating providers or files new prospective reviews.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted suspension and termination petitions and defended a claim petition for a local mushroom distribution company. The claimant sustained a work injury when he slipped and fell during the course and scope of his employment. He returned to work in a light-duty capacity and then abandoned the job shortly thereafter. He filed a claim petition to add concussion, neck and low back injuries. Testimony of fact witnesses proved the claimant abandoned his job in bad faith, while medical testimony proved the claimant to be fully recovered from his accepted injuries. Cross examination of the claimant’s medical expert demonstrated the expert’s lack of knowledge as to the facts of the claim and mechanics of the injury. It was further established through the cross examination of the claimant that he lacked any credibility regarding allegations of the head, neck or low back injuries. The suspension and termination petitions were granted, and the allegations of head/concussion, neck and back injuries were dismissed.
Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) recently won a case where the judge’s interlocutory order awarding benefits was appealed. The Appeal Board found that the notice stopping compensation and the notice of denial were not proper as the employer did not stop and deny the Temporary Notice of Compensation Payable within five days of the last payment of benefits. The Board found that: (1) we could appeal the interlocutory order because the order was essentially a final adjudication; and (2) the notice stopping and notice of denial were proper because it was within 90 days of the issuance of the Temporary Notice of Compensation Payable.
Lori Strauss (Philadelphia, PA) successfully argued before the Appeal Board, which affirmed the dismissal of a claim petition against our client, an international hotel chain. Prior counsel for the co-defendant had previously agreed that they were the correct employer, and the original claim petition against our client was dismissed. Thereafter, the co-defendant retained new counsel, who filed a joinder petition against our client. Lori argued the joinder petition should be dismissed based, in part, upon principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The judge agreed. The co-defendant appealed, and the Appeal Board affirmed the dismissal.
Ashley Eldridge (Philadelphia, PA) and Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended an appeal filed by a co-defendant before the Commonwealth Court. A claim petition was preliminarily filed against an uninsured employer, the UEGF, our client and a second insurance carrier. Litigation proceeded on a variety of legal issues, and while the claimant was able to prove an entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits, the primary issue was identifying the liable defendant. Ashley successfully defended the claim petition, and liability was imputed onto the other insurance carrier as the “borrowing employer.” The carrier appealed, arguing that our client was liable, although the Board upheld the underlying determination. An appeal was taken up to the Commonwealth Court, who affirmed the Appeal Board, finding that the other insurance carrier was liable for workers’ compensation benefits.
Shannon Fellin (Harrisburg, PA) secured a favorable decision where a claimant alleged injuries to his back, neck and shoulder while pulling back a hand-cart to avoid hitting a co-worker. The claimant was initially disabled by the panel doctor, then later released full duty. The claimant’s attorney then referred him to a specialist, who turned out to be a rheumatologist with a workers’ compensation/personal injury practice on the side. The claimant’s medical expert testified that the claimant had been totally disabled for more than one year as a result of a multitude of strains, sprains, irritation, radiculopathy and possible tears. In response, Shannon presented the panel provider, who testified to a full recovery and a release to full duty. Shannon also presented three employer representatives regarding lack of notice, job availability and the claimant’s limited attempt at light-duty. Ultimately, the judge found the panel doctor and all employer witnesses to be credible. The judge specifically rejected the testimony of the claimant on every issue. The claim and penalty petitions were denied.
*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 © 2020 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.