Our workers compensation defense team has a wealth of experience investigating workers compensation claims to ensure that they are valid to protect you against illegitimate claims.
The purpose of workers compensation programs is to cover employers and employees with insurance to provide weekly compensation and medical benefits, with some provision for permanent disabilities or impairments.
Often times we get involved in individual claims when there are disputes such as:
Our team conducts investigations for factual and surveillance evidence, collects medical records, and conducts independent medical examinations. Then we defend and argue the employer’s case at administrative hearings and/or in court.
In the past we have expertly represented governmental entities and funds, insurance carriers, institutional and commercial employers. Our victories include ground-breaking successes in Milici v. City of Philadelphia, overturning the right of workers to “double-dip,” and Hannigan v. WCAB, allowing the employer the right to subrogate against uninsured and underinsured recoveries.
The Worker’s Compensation Practice Group attorneys regularly offer training and instruction to members of the State and Local Bar as well as to employers on such issues as:
BUCCERONI V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA – Claimant’s claim petition was denied based upon positive work rule and not in the scope of employment when claimant police officer was involved in fights with his two superior officers.
JOHN CARPENTER V. WCAB in which we obtained a reversal of a decision granting a hearing loss claim based upon the Maguire decision which held that a claimant must meet the burden of proving that his hearing loss continued to develop after his retirement.
HANNIGAN V. WCAB – The Commonwealth Court finding that uninsured motorist benefits are subject to subrogation where the motor vehicle policy was purchased by someone other than the employee, employer, or tortfeasor.
ROBERT FISHER V. WCAB in which the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the WCAB which reversed the granting of an occupational cancer claim. This resulted in a Supersedeas Fund reimbursement in the amount of $123,751.44.
MILICI V. WCAB in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that even where a claimant has an irreversible disease, employer can still litigate the issue of whether claimant can perform a modified job and whether claimant has residual earning capacity.
PANCOAST V. WCAB – Commonwealth Court decision holding that even if the claimant’s condition is an irreversible occupational disease, employer is still entitled to a physical exam.
PRYOR V. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL – Commonwealth Court win involving modification and suspension petition resulting in suspension of benefits and Supersedeas Fund reimbursement of $140,000.00.