×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Marshall DenneheyShare Holder
no photo
Pro

Michael R. Duffy

Not yet reviewed

15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 5429, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Workers' Compensation

About Michael R. Duffy

Michael is an experienced workers' compensation attorney who focuses his practice on defending employers and insurance carriers in matters related to workers' compensation. He counsels clients on all aspects of workers' compensation claims management to help minimize their exposure. He has successfully defended employers in many industries, including trucking, construction, landscaping, manufacturing, hospitality and assisted living facilities.

Michael earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from The Pennsylvania State University and his juris doctor from Widener University Delaware Law School. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

An active member of the legal community, Michael is a member of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Coalition, Brehon Law Society, Philadelphia Bar Association and Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers’ Compensation Inn of Court.

Honors & awards

Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star
2022-2025

Year joined

2016

Results

Favorable Decision Secured in Multi-Million Dollar Workers’ Compensation Matter

Workers' Compensation
October 22, 2025

We received a favorable decision that saved our client millions of dollars. The claimant filed a claim petition alleging he sustained a left shoulder dislocation, stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome and post-traumatic seizures as a result of a fall at work. After the claimant fell at work and sustained a left shoulder dislocation, he went to the hospital for the dislocation, was treated and discharged. Four days later he sustained a stroke at home. He had multiple surgeries and was hospitalized for four months.

Termination Petition Affirmed before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board

Workers' Compensation
June 19, 2025

We received an opinion from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirming the decision granting our termination petition. The employer had accepted an “upper back area” injury through a Notice of Compensation Payable. Prior to issuing the NCP, the employer secured an IME, where the doctor ultimately opined that the claimant was fully recovered from a lumbar sprain. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was fully recovered from the work injury based upon the credible opinions of the employer’s medical expert.

Successfully Defended Against Two Review Petitions in Shoulder Injury Case

Workers' Compensation
December 13, 2024

We successfully defended against two review petitions in a case in which the client had accepted the claim as a right shoulder injury. As the claimant was lowering a trailer to a hitch, the trailer fell a few inches, causing the hand crank to spin and jerk the claimant’s shoulder.

Successful defense of reinstatement petition.

Workers' Compensation
November 10, 2022

The petition was filed by the claimant before an administrative judge. The claimant alleged he was entitled to reinstatement of indemnity benefits after he voluntarily stopped working due to hand pain. We argued the light-duty position available and offered to the claimant was a one-handed position, and presented employer fact witness testimony and video of the light-duty job in rebuttal.

Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision reversed on appeal.

Workers' Compensation
November 23, 2020

We won a case on appeal, reversing the judge’s decision. Our insurance carrier client issued a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP), agreeing to pay both indemnity and medical benefits for a lumbar strain allegedly sustained by the claimant. The 90-day period began on April 22, 2018, and ended July 20, 2018. On June 21, 2018, the claimant filed a claim petition for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging a low back injury.

Thought Leadership

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotions

December 15, 2025
Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2026. Additionally, two attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel.

A Costly Mistake

King of Prussia
Workers' Compensation
June 1, 2025
Key Points: Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 22, 2025
Thirty-three attorneys across Marshall Dennehey's five Pennsylvania offices have been selected to the 2025 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 17, 2024
Twenty-eight attorneys across Marshall Dennehey's six Pennsylvania offices have been selected to the 2024 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2022 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 23, 2022
Thirty-four attorneys across Marshall Dennehey's six Pennsylvania offices have been selected to the 2022 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine.

Classes/Seminars Taught

Caught on Camera: Using Surveillance & Social Media in PA Workers’ Compensation Cases, PBI's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation 2025, June 12, 2025

Unique Workers' Compensation Aspects of Independent Contractors and Traveling Employees, Lorman Education Services webinar, December 16, 2021

Workers' Compensation 101, client seminar, August 19, 2020

 

Michael R. Duffy (Mount Laurel, New Jersey) View website

Reviews for Michael R.

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Other 1
    • Workers' Compensation

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Shareholder
    Firm Name
    Marshall Dennehey
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Significant Representative Matters: Received a favorable decision where the judge granted our termination petition
    denied the claimant's Petition for Penalties
    Petition to Review Utilization Review Determination. The employer had accepted a right middle finger sprain. In prior litigation, the claimant's review petition seeking to exp
    this injury was denied. In the pending termination petition, the judge found the claimant not credible with regard to his ongoing complaints. The claimant claimed to be bed bound,
    the judge opined that this allegation as a result of a finger sprain was absurd. The penalty petition related to payment of medical bills,
    the judge found that, since the medical bills were related to the h

    not the finger, the penalty was denied. He also denied the claimant's Petition to Review the Utilization Review Determination, finding that more than 185 physical therapy visits were not reasonable for a finger sprain
    because the opinions of the reviewer were corroborated by the employer's expert's opinion of full recovery.
    Obtained a decision granting the employer's termination petition. The claimant had sustained injuries to her low back as a result of a work injury wherein she was struck in her back by a coworker opening a door. The claimant alleged she sustained additional injuries, including multiple disc herniations. After subpoenaing records from various providers, Michael was able to show that the claimant had been in multiple car accidents
    had prior injuries to her low back, resulting in treatment lasting up to a few months prior to the work injury. The claimant had denied any prior injuries during her testimony before the workers' compensation judge. The judge found the employer's expert credible
    terminated the claimant's benefits.
    Received a favorable decision in a case involving Claim
    Penalty petitions. The claimant alleged cervical injuries requiring surgery. Our medical expert agreed that surgery was required but did not agree to a work injury based on the records obtained following the claimant's deposition. Though the claimant testified to never having prior injuries or treatment for his neck prior to the injuries, Mike was able to obtain medical records showing treatment for the same complaints two weeks prior to the work injury. The judge denied the Claim
    Penalty petitions.
    Obtained a Decision granting Review
    Termination Petitions
    denying the claimant's Review Petition. The claimant fell approximately 20 feet from a ladder
    sustained bilateral calcaneal fractures. The employer/insurer issued an NCP accepting bilateral ankle fractures. The defense filed a Termination Petition alleging a full recovery
    also filed a Review to amend the description of injury to change the description of injury to bilateral calcaneal fractures. The claimant then filed a Review to amend the description of injury to include traumatic neuropathic pain secondary to bilateral calcaneal fractures, lumbar spine strain, lumbar spine disc injury,
    bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. In making his decision, the judge found the defense expert more credible than claimant's expert.
    Published Works: ' Bullying in the Workplace, ' CLM Magazine, December 2021
    ' Is There a Doctor in the House? Telemedicine Has Its Benefits, But Not for Contested Workers' Compensation Claims, ' CLM Magazine, November 2020
    'Exercising Reasonable Diligence: Commonwealth Court Provides Guidance to 120-Day Rule,' Defense Digest, December 2018, Vol. 24, No. 4
    'Ingress
    Egress: Appellate Division Finds Employer Had Control Over Parking Lot,' Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2017
  • Additional Links
    http://www.marshalldennehey.com/attorneys/michael-r-duffy

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2016, New Jersey
    2016, Pennsylvania
    Memberships

    Associations & memberships

    Brehon Law Society
    Judge Alexander F. Barbieri Workers' Compensation Inn of Court
    Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Coalition
    Philadelphia Bar Association
    URMIA

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Widener University Delaware Law School, Wilmington, DE
    Class of 2015
    J.D.
    Honors: Moot Court Honor Society; Law Review, Research Editor
    Other Education
    The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
    Class of 2011
    B.A.
    Major: Political Science

Contact Michael R. Duffy

Share Holder at Marshall Dennehey
Not yet reviewed

15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200P.O. Box 5429Mount Laurel, NJ 08054U.S.A.

Show on map
Fax: (856) 414-6077

Activity

Legal Community Contributions

Email Michael R. Duffy

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form

Attorneys FAQs

  • What law school did this attorney attend?
    Michael R. Duffy attended Widener University Delaware Law School, Wilmington, DE.
  • What year was this attorney's law firm established?
    Marshall Dennehey was established in 1962.

Attorney information displayed in this FAQ section is based upon information the lawyer has included on their profile, in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals.

These FAQs include information about a lawyer's background, but do not evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases, personality, or communication skills.

It is solely the responsibility of lawyers and law firms to ensure that any information they provide complies with all applicable laws and rules of professional conduct.

You should be aware that the information we rely upon may not be comprehensive, or frequently updated.

Always research the lawyer further to get a better understanding of their license credentials, disciplinary status, background, and experience.

Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions