WHAT’S HOT IN WORKERS’ COMP - NEWS AND RESULTS*
NEWS
Katherine Bavoso and Shannon Fellin (Harrisburg) presented at the Workers' Compensation Bench and Bar Best Practices 2023 forum on April 27. They joined a distinguished panel of workers’ compensation judges and attorneys to discuss ways to improve practice before the Court, offer practical solutions to common problems, and share strategies for side-stepping ethical traps that could damage a case.
Anthony Natale and Robin Romano (Philadelphia) presented at PBI’s “Tough Problems in Workers’ Compensation” on May 11. The program highlighted techniques for managing challenges in workers’ compensation practice and discused tactics for dealing with difficult litigants and the ethics surrounding aggressive lawyering.
On May 17, Frank Wickersham (King of Prussia) presented “One Less Zombie in the Workers’ Compensation Apocalypse” at the CLM 2023 Workers’ Compensation, Casualty & Risk Management Conference.
RESULTS*
Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh) successfully defended a claim petition alleging a traumatic closed head injury resulting in memory loss, speech issues and disability. Before incurring expensive legal and medical expert expenses, Ryan established that the claimant was neither an independent contractor nor an employee of the insured at the time of the alleged work injury.
Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh) successfully prosecuted a Petition for Review of Utilization Review for medication by presenting detailed medical evidence and successfully cross-examining the claimant. This permitted the employer to obtain reimbursement.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia) successfully defended a national trucking company against a complex appeal to a decision denying a fatal claim petition. The decedent died of a heart attack shortly after an out-of-state overnight delivery. Conflicting medical expert testimony on causation was resolved by the lower court in favor of the employer. Constitutional arguments were proffered in an attempt to exclude evidence relied upon by the lower court. The Appeal Board accepted Tony’s legal defense to the appeal issues, and the lower court was affirmed.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia) successfully defended a Pennsylvania medical design and manufacturing services provider against an appeal to a decision denying a claim petition that alleged both pulmonary and physical injuries. The claimant alleged various injuries from breathing in chemicals at work and performing labor-intensive activities. Tony was able to expose the fact in the underlying action that the claimant’s primary care physician opined the symptoms of injury were “in the claimant’s head” and not supported by objective findings. On appeal, the claimant made the novel argument that the lower court must be bound by a Social Security Administration (SSA) disability ruling in the matter. The underlying decision of the SSA was not put in evidence, and the medical referenced in the SSA’s records demonstrated the claimant’s ability to work. The Appeal Board, therefore, accepted Tony’s motion to affirm the lower court.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a Berks County mushroom farm. The claimant originally injured her shoulder during the course and scope of employment. Conflicting medical expert testimony was presented, and the court found Tony’s cross examination of the claimant’s expert to be especially telling with regard to credibility. The termination petition was therefore granted by the court, and all benefits were terminated.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a national cable company. The claimant originally injured his neck and head when he bumped his head exiting a truck. A bevy of diagnostic tests revealed no ongoing injury. Superior medical expert testimony from the employer’s orthopedic surgeon corroborated the finding of full recovery. The court agreed and granted a termination of all benefits.
Rob Schenk (Philadelphia) successfully defended a claim petition. The judge rejected the claimant’s testimony as not credible, finding it “suspicious” that the claimant did not seek immediate treatment when he claimed he felt like he had broken his back. Nor did he seek treatment for an additional month and then only at the direction of his attorney.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg) successfully defended a termination petition based upon our medical expert being found credible and persuasive that the claimant had non-physiological complaints unrelated to the accepted work injury.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg) successfully defended a Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement Petition by arguing that the underlying decision against the insurer was erroneously issued. The insurer was able to recover monies paid on behalf of the claimant in the amount of $14,000.00.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) successfully defended a termination petition involving a head injury where the judge credited the opinions of our medical expert over those of the claimant’s treating physician and found the claimant to be fully recovered.
*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 27, No. 5, May 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.