Farrell, Michael A Archives - Mette, Evans & Woodside

Four Mette, Evans & Woodside Attorneys Named “Super Lawyers”

May 16, 2019/in Edwards, Victoria P., Farrell, Michael A, Goldsmith, James L, Latest News, Recognition, Simpson, Kathryn Lease /by ME&W

Attorneys pictured (left to right): Kathryn Simpson, James Goldsmith, Michael Farrell & Victoria Edwards

Mette, Evans & Woodside attorneys Kathryn L. Simpson, James L. Goldsmith and Michael A. Farrell were named as top attorneys in Pennsylvania by Super Lawyers. Attorney Victoria P. Edwards was also recognized by Super Lawyer as a Rising Star. The Super Lawyers honor is reserved for attorneys who exhibit excellence in their legal practice with just five percent achieving the recognition in the state.

Ms. Simpson’s practice is in commercial litigation, professional liability defense, labor and employment, and health law. Since 2004, Ms. Simpson has been recognized as a Super Lawyer for her litigation work. She is a frequent speaker and author of continuing legal education course materials for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

Mr. Goldsmith focuses his practice on professional liability defense, professional licensure defense and real estate litigation. Since 2006, he has been recognized in the professional liability defense category. Mr. Goldsmith also provides legal expertise to professional trade associations such as the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, and several Associations of REALTORS® across Pennsylvania.

Mr. Farrell, who has been recognized for seven years, has been practicing in the field of insurance defense litigation for 32 years. He is a certified 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. He has published articles and has taught seminars relating to Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ms. Edwards dedicates her practice to workers’ compensation and social security disability. Since 2016, she has been recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers. Ms. Edwards also is a certified 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.

“Having so many of our attorneys recognized as “Super Lawyers” over the last decade is a testament to Mette, Evans & Woodside’s dedication to providing top-notch legal counsel,” said the firm’s President Tim Hoy. “We’re proud to have these outstanding attorneys as a part of our legal team.”

Mette, Evans & Woodside has a long-standing tradition of providing comprehensive legal representation in Litigation, Estates and Trusts, Business and Real Estate. Founded in 1969, the firm provides clients throughout Pennsylvania with sound legal counsel for all facets of their professional and personal life.

Attorneys Farrell and Edwards Successfully Defend Workers’ Compensation Challenge for Client

January 17, 2018/in Edwards, Victoria P., Farrell, Michael A, Latest News /by ME&W

The Commonwealth Court of PA decided in favor of the client represented by Attorneys Farrell and Edwards, that the Workers’ Compensation Judge does not have jurisdiction to review a Utilization Review Determination where the Provider under review fails to provide medical records to the reviewer. The Court also held that denying the Claimant the right to a hearing did not violate the Claimant’s right to due process because the Claimant does not have a property interest in his future medical treatment.

A utilization review doctor did not violate the due process rights of an injured worker by denying a medication and injection regimen after a treating physician failed to submit medical records to justify the treatments, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided Friday.

Michael Farrell, one of the Mette, Evans & Woodside attorneys representing Fisher Auto Parts’, argued that because the utilization review doctor had deemed the Claimants treatments no longer reasonable or necessary, the Claimant no longer had a property right to them.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board sided with Attorneys Farrell and Edward’s client, overturning the order of a workers’ compensation judge who decided that the Claimant had proved he needed the treatments. The WCAB said that the judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction over UR denials due to a lack of medical records.

Attorney Farrell said he thinks the Commonwealth Court made the right call in this constitutional challenge. “The due process argument that was raised makes (this case) unique, and I think the court actually decided it correctly – there was no violation of the procedural due process of the Claimant of this case,” Farrell said. “The court indicated there was no identifiable property right of the Claimant that had been denied.”

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT
FILED: January 12, 2018

Timothy Allison (Claimant) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board) holding that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) lacked jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s appeal of a utilization review determination. In this appeal, we consider whether a WCJ has jurisdiction to review the reasonableness and necessity of Claimant’s medical treatment where, as here, Claimant’s provider did not provide medical records to the utilization review organization (URO) but a peer review report was nevertheless prepared. We also consider whether the Board violated Claimant’s due process rights by denying Claimant a right to appeal the URO determination.

READ FULL DECISION

WorkCompCentral.com Article

Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to UR Provision
by Emily Brill

READ FULL ARTICLE

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides the Protz Case

August 15, 2017/in Employment Law, Farrell, Michael A, Industry News /by ME&W

By Michael A. Farrell

On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down its decision in Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area School District). The Protz decision rendered unconstitutional, Section 306(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, eliminating the use of an impairment rating evaluation in order to change the disability status of an injured worker from total to partial thereby limiting the injured worker to 500 weeks of benefits. At the heart of the Court’s decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the integrity of the legislative function is vital to the preservation of liberty. While the General Assembly, under some circumstances, is permitted to delegate the authority and discretion to execute or administer laws, it found that 306(a)(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act lacked any of the procedural safeguards that the Court considers essential to protect the authority and discretion of legislative decision-making.

Once finding that the offending language of Section 306(a)(2) did not pass constitutional muster, the Court determined that without Section (a)(2) the remainder of that Section of the Act would be rendered incomprehensible. Accordingly, it struck down that Section of the Act, in its entirety.

In the wake of that decision lies the unanswered question of what effect does the Court’s holding have on cases that have affected an injured worker’s disability status through the use of the impairment rating evaluation and what clarification and/or guidance can we expect from the courts and/or the legislature? Also, what effect will the holding in Protz have on the administration of future workers’ compensation claims?

In its decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not specifically state that its holding was to be applied retroactively, although that would appear to be the logical application of the holding. Nevertheless, there is precedent for the argument that in any case in which the issue in question has not been properly preserved at every stage of the proceding, that issue is deemed waived. Using that argument as applied to all cases in which an injured worker’s disability status has been changed from total to partial through the use of the impairment rating evaluation, unless the constitutionality issue had been preserved at all stages of adjudication, the courts may well determine that the constitutionality issue is waived and that the injured worker does not have the opportunity to have his or her disability status reverted to total disability. Additionally, the courts can consider the effect that a retroactive application would have on the Workers’ Compensation Adjudication System in determining whether or not the holding of the Court is to be applied retroactively.

Another obvious effect that the Court’s holding in Protz will have on the administration of workers’ compensation claims is that employers can no longer utilize the tool of an impairment rating evaluation to limit the exposure presented by a workers’ compensation claim. Accordingly, it is likely that other traditional tools for the administration and limitation of the exposure presented by workers’ compensation claims will have to be utilized, such as earning power assessments followed by labor market surveys and the filing and litigation of modification and suspension petitions. A more immediate effect of the Protz holding is that reserves placed on workers’ compensation claims will have to be adjusted upward to account for the likely extended period of time that claims will have to be paid while the process of having a vocational evaluation performed followed by a labor market survey and the litigation of the appropriate petition is proceeding. Accordingly, I would expect to see an uptick in the use of vocational experts to perform earning power assessments and labor market surveys to attempt to control the ongoing exposure presented by workers’ compensation claims.

Finally, with respect to the workers’ compensation claims that have been resolved through settlement, I fully expect that the resolution of those claims will remain undisturbed by the Protz decision. The case law is well settled that compromise and release agreement can only be set aside for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or mutual mistake of fact. The settlement was a bargained for transaction by the parties, both of whom understood the terms and effects of the settlement.

Having said all the above, all workers’ compensation practitioners are looking towards the courts and/or legislature for guidance on the application and effect of the Protz decision on the future administration and litigation of workers’ compensation cases.

Contact Us