Shawn Gooden represents employers, insurance companies, self-insured entities and third-party administrators in workers’ compensation matters and general casualty matters arising from work-related injuries.
In addition to appearances before Workers’ Compensation Judges, Shawn has an extensive appellate practice before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Shawn is certified as a specialist in the practice of Workers’ Compensation Law by the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Section on Workers’ Compensation Law as authorized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This is a distinction granted only to attorneys with extensive experience in handling Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation cases and who pass a formidable examination.
Shawn is the 2002 recipient of the Irwin R. Stander Memorial Prize for excellence in administrative law presented by the Philadelphia Bar Association.
Successfully defended Claim Petition in which the employee alleged work-related lower back injury. The injury was not witnessed and employee presented to the panel provider but refused to participate in a drug test. Later, employee failed to attend appointments with the panel provider and then began treating with doctors recommended by his attorney. Surveillance was obtained showing employee working as a caddy contradicting the restrictions imposed by his treating doctor who indicated that he was unable to return to work. The Judge rejected the employee’s testimony finding it not credible based upon his refusal to participate in a drug test and his insistence that he was disabled despite his caddying activities.
Successfully defended a Claim Petition in which the employee alleged that she suffered a back injury while removing snow from vehicles. However, evidence from her co-workers indicated that she did not remove snow since she was a supervisor and that she did not make any lower back complaints until after she moved over the weekend. In addition, the employee was terminated for cause because shortly after her alleged injury, she fabricated a customer’s signature on a purchase order. The Judge found her testimony to be completely not credible based upon the fabricated signature and the testimony of her co-workers. She underwent back surgery as a result of the alleged injury and so the indemnity exposure was approximately $40,000.
Prevailed in case before Commonwealth Court in which the employee alleged a knee injury while running from his place of employment to his vehicle. The employee received a telephone call from his daughter’s school that the daughter was missing. He immediately left his employment and while running to his vehicle, suffered an injury to his knee when it buckled. The claim was originally granted by the Judge who concluded that the employee was in the course and scope of his employment while running to his car. The matter was appealed to the Appeal Board which affirmed the decision, but the decision was later overturned by the Commonwealth Court.
- 05.16.16Panelist, "Getting What You Pay For: The Nuts and Bolts of a C&R," 15th Annual Workers’ Compensation Conference, Hershey, PA
- 06.01.15Presenter, “Legal Hurdles and Defenses,” Department of Labor and Industry Workers’ Compensation Conference, Hershey PA
- 09.12.14 Presenter, “The Ethics of Lawyer Advertising Today,” Pennsylvania Bar Association, Fall Section Meeting, Hershey, PA
Professional & Community Involvement
Harrisburg Claims Association
Dauphin County Bar Association
Pennsylvania Self Insureds Association
717.237.6940 ext. 2303