Mr. Martin serves on the Planning Commission of West Vincent Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of EarthJustice, a non-profit, public interest law firm dedicated to protecting natural resources and wildlife of the earth and defending the right of all people to have a healthy environment.

The new ALJs will be brought on board in phases with the first hires reporting for duty in April, when they will begin an intensive orientation and training program. While initially handling a reduced docket, newly hired ALJs should be scheduling a full docket of cases by the end of the year.

Hiring of additional ALJs is only one component of the plan the agency has put in place to reduce the backlog of disability cases. The agency also continues to make progress in many other areas including opening the National Hearing Center, completing the nationwide roll-out of the Quick Disability Determination Process, implementing compassionate allowances and eliminating aged cases. More information about Social Security's plan is available at www.socialsecurity.gov/disability under the heading What's New.

Mr. Carlson has been a litigator of Pennsylvania workers' compensation cases since 1992. For the first seven years of his practice, he worked at a leading defense firm representing major corporations, insurance companies, and state and local government agencies in Pennsylvania workers' compensation matters. In 2000, he joined Martin Banks to represent injured workers. In addition to an extensive caseload, Mr. Carlson is a frequent lecturer on workers' compensation matters and has authored numerous articles on the subject. Mr. Carlson has served as the legislative liaison for the Philadelphia Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Section prior to his election as Co-Chair. He is a member of the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations as well as the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. He received his law degree from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.

Many wonder if they are eligible to qualify for Social Security Disability benefits. A good rule of thumb to determine eligibility is this: if you have worked and paid Social Security taxes for five out of the last ten years, you are more than likely eligible for benefits. However, it is possible that although you worked for the past five years, you did not earn enough credits to qualify. That is why the Social Security Earning Statement is so important. Within this statement, Social Security specifically indicated whether or not you have earned enough credits to qualify. If you have earned enough credits to qualify for disability, Social Security will indicate what your monthly benefit rate will be if you are found to be disabled. If you have not earned enough credits to qualify, Social Security will tell you exactly how many credits you are short.

If you are interested in applying for Social Security Disability benefits or have questions in regard to your eligibility, please contact our office at 215.587.8400.

Mr. Stern has published several articles on workers' compensation in the Legal Intelligencer and is a frequent speaker at seminars in this area of law. He is a member of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations and Trial Lawyers Associations. In 2006, Mr. Stern was recognized by the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania by being enrolled in their Pro Bono Roll of Honor. Mr. Stern was appointed to the Membership and Amicus Curiae Committees of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. He is an active volunteer in the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Program (VIP), where he handles a variety of cases for underprivileged individuals on a pro bono basis.

Clearly, in light of Sears Logistic Services and Visteon Systems, workers' compensation judges are allowed to expand recognized work injuries in the absence of a review petition. However, the limitations of when they are empowered to do so have still not been completely defined. Practically speaking when handling a case where the new injuries seem to be a different body part and/or were not in existence at the time the injury was recognized, it is best to file a review petition.

The Claimant in this case sustained a disabiling injury in the course of his volunteer service as a firefighter. The Employer (Darby Borough) issued a Notice of Compensation Payable, allowing the injured firefighter to collect $477.85 per week, by using the statutory formula for firefighters injured in the line of duty. The injured firefighter filed a claim petition, seeking to increase his workers' compensation, stating that his earnings from his regular full-time employment of $580 per week should have been added to the presumed statutory average weekly wage, and thus allowing him to collect $716 per week. The workers' compensation judge found against the Claimant, stating that the "stacking" of wages was not permitted by the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. The WCAB affirmed this decision.

In Ingram the decedent was granted workers' compensation benefits in 1989 and again in 1995 for carpal tunnel syndrome. Four months after the decedent's last day of work in 1995, a claim petition was filed by the decedent for an asbestos-related occupational disease. In March of 1998, the workers' compensation judge circulated a decision approving a compromise and release agreementthat resolved liability of the employer for the accepted carpal tunnel injuries. The agreement also resolved liability for the occupational disease claim.

More than 300 weeks after the decedent's last day of work, the decedent died from lung cancer. Decedent's grandson filed a fatal claim petition to collect benefits. The Court held that an approved compromise and release agreement extinguishes a dependant claimant's right to pursue a fatal claim where the decedent claimant eventually died from the occupational disease. The Court explained its reasoning by noting that the legislature intended the compromise and release agreements to be on equal footing with civil settlements, which stress finality of the case.

A partner with the firm, Mr. Dogum has limited his practice to Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation since 1992. Originally a partner at a major Philadelphia defense firm representing Fortune 500 companies and major insurance carriers in workers' compensation litigation, Mr. Dogum joined Martin, Banks, Pond, Lehocky & Wilson in 2002 to protect the rights of injured workers.

Mr. Dogum earned his law degree from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.

In the case, the employer's medical expert testified that he thought the claimant's work injury was a strain or sprain of the back. However, a lumbar disc herniation had been recognized through a Notice of Compensation Payable. The Court held that the medical expert's testimony was insufficient to support the employer's contention that the claimant had fully recovered. The Court wrote that "(a)t a bare minimum, the expert must know what the accepted work-related injury was to be competent to testify that a claimant has fully recovered from a work-related injury."

The employer filed an appeal of the workers' compensation judge's decision, stating that the workers' compensation judge found the evidence of the employer's witness most credible, and based on that, the only decision to be handed down was to modify benefits and have the claimant return to full-time employment. The WCAB agreed with the employer, and the ruling of the workers' compensation judge was overturned. The claimant then appealed the decision to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the WCAB, explaining that finding the claimant was capable of full-time earnings was the only way that the evidence conformed to the award.

Mr. Dogum earned his law degree from Widener University School of Law in 1992 and is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.

In Delarosa v. WCAB (Masonic Homes), the claimant settled the partial disability benefits of her case through a lump sum settlement, but her employer remained liable for any reasonable and necessary medical expenses that are incurred as related to her work injury. The settlement occurred in 1997. In early 1998, the claimant filed a penalty petition against the employer, alleging that the employer had failed to reasonable medical expenses incurred by the claimant between 1996 and 1998 as a result of her work injury. In question was if the medical treatment was causally related to the claimant's work injury. The Court found that the treatment was medically necessary and related to her work injury and ordered the employer to pay for the expenses. With regards to the penalty petition, the Court stated that the imposition of a penalty in these types of situations is up to the workers' compensation judge who hears the penalty, and not the Court, and thus, denied the penalty petition.