Weber Gallagher defends employers in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, and New Jersey in workers’ compensation matters in union and non-union settings. We also routinely recover subrogation liens, institute fraud prosecutions, prepare and file amicus briefs and assist with legislative lobbying. Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business recognized the firm’s Workers’ Compensation practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in 2019. Our clients include public and private employers, insurers, self-insured entities and third-party administrators, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies. We appear before workers’ compensation judges and appellate panels, state courts and agencies, and at all federal court levels. Our work in the field includes:
- Counseling clients on managing risk and averting litigation
- Assisting with the design and implementation of return-to-work programs
- Helping coordinate workers’ compensation policies for multistate businesses
- Handling matters related to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, Merchant Marine Act (the Jones Act), and Mine Safety and Health Administration
Our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Group attorneys have been closely following the Protz v WCAB (Derry Area School District) ruling and how it will affect employers. The unexpected decision by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that Impairment Rating Evaluations (IRE) are unconstitutional if they were performed using any edition of the AMA Guides of Permanent Impairment beyond the 4th Edition. Click here to review our detailed materials about this decision.
Successfully defended a claim before the Appellate Division on a question of insurance coverage and whether the policy was in effect at the time of injury. The policy at issue was provided to a subcontractor hired by our insured. The claim was initially filed in Pennsylvania where the injured worker lived, and his employer was located. Based on Pennsylvania law, it appeared that the carrier canceled the workers' compensation insurance coverage for non-payment. The injured worker then chose to pursue his claim in New Jersey, where the injury occurred. He also received medical treatment in New Jersey totaling over $1.3 million for an extended hospital stay due to his severe burns. The insurance carrier for the subcontractor attempted to argue that there was no coverage in place in New Jersey at the time of the accident as the insurance carrier did not operate nor write policies in New Jersey. The insurance carrier claimed cancellation of the Pennsylvania policy was transferable to New Jersey and, therefore, there was no need to show proper cancellation in New Jersey. However, the insurance carrier did not deny that New Jersey was not excluded under the policy. After briefs were submitted, and without oral argument, the Appellate Division denied the Motion for Leave to Appeal and dismissed the Notice of Motion for Appeal.
Successfully defended a motion for medical treatment involving a claim where the petitioner had two work-related accidents within months of each other with alleged injury to the hip in both claims, among other injuries. The petitioner filed a Motion for Medical and Temporary Disability Benefits seeking hip surgery recommended by her expert for a labral tear. This contrasted with the respondent’s expert who found no discrete tear from an accident and no need for treatment. After testimony by the petitioner and both experts, all conducted using Zoom, the Judge entered an Order denying the Motion for failure to sustain the burden of proof. While the Judge noted the petitioner was a credible individual, the issue turned on causation to which the Judge looked to the experts. The Judge found the respondent’s expert to be more thorough in his explanations of his conclusions during testimony and in his ability to explain his review of the MRI study as well as being able to show the MRI during testimony.
Successfully defended a claim before the Appellate Division affirming a Trial Court's decision that a Bihler operator did not suffer hearing loss during the course and scope of his employment. The Judge of Compensation found a lack of credible evidence to prove petitioner suffered physical injuries and hearing loss as a result of excessive noise exposure based on petitioner’s inconsistent testimony, the records of the treating doctors, and petitioner’s expert testimony, which provided no basis for the diagnosis, as well as an inconsistent narrative of the facts of the case. The Appellate Court held that the judge's factual and credibility findings were amply supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, and there was no basis to disturb them.
- 02.18.21Presenter, "The COVID-19 Vaccine: Implications for Employers and Workers’ Compensation Claims"
- 06.04.19Panelist, "Health Information Privacy: Is Your Medical Information Protected?" Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry's 18th Annual Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Conference, Hershey, PA
- 05.28.19Presenter, IRE Analysis: Practice and Procedure, Moorestown, NJ