Results – Our Cases Change the Law – In the Pa. Supreme Court

Cases That Change The Law – A Record of Results That Help Accident Victims & Protect Rights

Other law firms follow the leaders. We are The Leaders. Attorney Daniel J. Siegel’s precedent-setting Workers’ Compensation and personal injury cases have assured or increased the benefits of more injured persons than any law firm in Pennsylvania. Here are our Pennsylvania Supreme Court victories:

Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc. (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 335 A.3d 1076 (Pa. 2024)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an injured worker is entitled to specific loss benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act after her death from work-related injuries. The decision overturns more than two decades of cases barring such a recovery.

Sicilia v. API Roofers Advantage Program (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 318 A.3d 803 (Pa. 2024)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, when a physician performs an Impairment Rating Evaluation, the examining physician must examine all impairments flowing from the compensable injury, not only those delineated in the Notice of Compensation Payable.

Alpini v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tinicum Twp.), 294 A.3d 307 (Pa. 2023)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Section 1720 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law precludes an employer from subrogating its payment of Heart and Lung Act benefits against the proceeds of a claimant’s Dram Shop Act claim because the matter arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.

Keystone Rx LLC v. BWC Fee Review Hearing Office (CompServices Inc./Amerihealth Casualty Services), 265 A.3d 322 (Pa. 2021)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that medical providers who treat injured workers are entitled to due process.

Peters. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cintas Corp.), 263 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2021)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the “traveling employee” doctrine, holding that when a traveling employee is injured after setting out on the business of his employer, it is presumed that he was furthering the employer’s business at the time of the injury. To rebut the presumption, the employer must prove that the claimant’s actions were so foreign to and removed from his usual employment that they constitute an abandonment of that employment.

Dana Holding Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Smuck), 232 A.3d 629 (Pa. 2020)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that its holding in Protz applied retroactively to cases actively challenging the constitutionality of the Impairment Rating process.

US Airways, Inc. v. Workers ‘ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bockelman), 221 A.3d 171 (Pa. 2019)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that an airline employee was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries while on a parking lot shuttle bus because the employee’s use of the bus was integral to her employer’s business.

Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 215 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2019)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an exculpatory release that attempts to release gross negligence is invalid and unenforceable. The Court also affirmed that when a party, in this case, a college undertakes a duty to provide qualified trainers at a practice, it must do so in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Balentine v. Chester Water Authority, 191 A.3d 799 (Pa. 2018)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, to be in operation, a vehicle need not be moving, overturning decades of cases involving claims against state and local governments. The Court adopted the test proposed in the Amicus brief and referred to it during oral argument.

Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2016)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Impairment Rating Evaluation provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol, 174 A.3d 578 (Pa. 2016)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, in claims for uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist, which are based in contract, the cause of action accrues and starts the running of the limitation period when the carrier denies the claim or refuses to arbitrate.

Commonwealth v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Harvey), 993 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2010)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that the use of actuarial data to calculate pension offsets for injured employees who also receive pension benefits from a defined benefit plan. By not foreclosing a claimant’s ability to challenge the calculations and the assumptions underlying them, injured workers may still employ actuaries to establish when improper and inaccurate calculations form the basis for a claimed offset.

McElheney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kvaerner Phila. Shipyard), 940 A.2d 351 (Pa. 2008)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a worker injured while on a ship in a graven dry dock was not injured upon the “navigable waters of the United States,” and was entitled to benefits under both the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court ruled that the graven dry dock, which by definition was cut and dug out of the land, was not within the limits of the navigable waters of the United States.

Walsh v. City of Philadelphia, 526 Pa. 222, 585 A.2d 445 (Pa. 1991)

This Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision defined the nature of permissible claims against municipalities under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act and outlined the standard for the types of injuries for which local governmental bodies are responsible for damages under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

Insurance companies know that we will fight – and win – cases, no matter how hard the battle. That’s why they often settle with us for greater amounts to avoid the appeal.

To see how we can help you, call (610) 446-3457 or click here to send us an email.