.png)
Publications
Excluding counsel fees from payment of future medical benefits based on future medical expenses as speculative is contrary to Sec. 306(f.1)(7) of the Act, which prohibits provider from billing claimant for any costs relating to care under the Act.
In this case, a workers’ compensation judge granted in part and denied in part the claimant’s Petition to Review. The judge also approved a 20% Fee Agreement between the claimant and her counsel, but as to indemnity benefits only.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Under Section 440 of the Act, an unreasonable contest will always result in an award of attorney’s fees and a reasonable contest may result in an attorney’s fee award.
In this case, a workers’ compensation judge granted a Claim Petition and ordered payment of benefits for a September 17, 2020, work injury, but only through June 24, 2021, at which time, the judge found that the claimant had fully recovered from t
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Superior Court affirms decision denying claimant’s motion to strike medical expert testimony regarding medical records produced for the first time after claimant’s medical expert’s deposition.
Ms. Trincia filed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due that alleged she injured her cervical spine and left shoulder in a work accident on September 23, 2020. The claimant’s primary care physician, Dr.
The 120-day rule does not apply if the employer/carrier only accepted compensability and provided treatment for a temporary exacerbation.
The claimant requested compensability, evaluation and treatment for the right knee, temporary total disability/temporary partial disability (TTD/TPD) and penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees (PICA) related to an October 19, 2021, work-r
Appellate Division affirmed workers’ compensation orders denying medical treatment and finding lack of causation.
The Appellate Division affirmed the workers’ compensation order denying the petitioner’s motion for medical and temporary benefits and two other orders denying her motions to suppress defenses and compel discovery.
Appellate Division finds no reason to disturb employer’s experts’ qualifications, to not accept their testimony, and rejects claim that experts only offered net opinions. Appellate Division found that experts provided the reasons for their conclusions.
The pro se petitioner appealed from a workers’ compensation order finding that his injuries were not causally related to his employment. The petitioner filed two claims, both seeking medical and temporary benefits from the respondent.
Act 111 is not an unconstitutional special law regulating labor, and an IRE physician’s evaluation is competent to support a modification of benefits despite not considering the most recent medical records and diagnostic studies.
The claimant underwent an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) on September 20, 2011, following a July 5, 2005, work injury.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board violates long-standing workers’ compensation principles by overturning credibility findings made by a worker’s compensation judge.
The claimant suffered a work injury to her right thumb in the nature of a strain/sprain.
What’s Hot In Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA):