What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
Tony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) spoke at the Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Fall Section Meeting on September 12 in Hershey, PA. He co-presented on the topic of “Average Weekly Wage.”
Heather Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) authored an article published in the Jacksonville Business Journal about the potential impact of Florida’s new heat exposure law on workers’ compensation in the state. Read the article here.
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, "6 Key Workers’ Compensation Safety and Data Analysis Considerations,” for Risk & Insurance. As a “Risk Insider” contributor for the publication, Michele is part of a group of leading executives focused on the topic of risk who share their insights and opinions. Read the article here
RESULTS*
Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA) received a decision granting a termination petition. Andrea presented the deposition testimony of the employer’s Board Certified orthopedic surgeon. The workers’ compensation judge found this expert’s testimony more credible than the claimant’s treating doctor, who is a Board Certified family doctor. Thus, the claimant’s benefits were terminated as of the date of this doctor’s medical exam, just six months after her original injury.
David Levine and William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) successfully obtained orders for dismissal, with prejudice, where four New Jersey medical providers alleged they were entitled to additional monies for medical treatment provided in New Jersey to a New York resident. The underlying accident involved a laborer who resided in New York, worked in New York and sustained the injuries in New York. Four medical providers filed medical provider claims against the employer in New Jersey, seeking $811,260.24 from the employer for treatment rendered in relation to this accident. Levine and Murphy filed motions to dismiss these claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting there were insufficient contacts with the state of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The treatment providers filed responses, arguing that performing treatment in New Jersey was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The judge of compensation ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the four medical providers’ applications with prejudice.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
WELCOME
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 9, September 2024, 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 © 2024 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.