Philadelphia, PA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 08/20/2019 -- Swartz Campbell is pleased to announce that partners Jeffrey B. McCarron and William T. Salzer have been included in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 for the practice areas of "Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants" and "Insurance Law," respectively.

For the third time, Jeffrey McCarron was named "Lawyer of the Year" in Philadelphia for Legal Malpractice defendants.

Since it was first published in 1983, "Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers 'the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.'" Additional details can be found at www.bestlawyers.com.

JEFF McCARRON has dedicated his practice to the representation of professionals in litigation. He developed and manages a group focused on the handling of professional liability litigation and disciplinary proceedings. The matters involve representation of lawyers, accountants, appraisers, realtors, insurance agents and brokers, officers and directors, architects and engineers, securities dealers, and title insurance agents. Jeff has handled hundreds of trials, and he has lectured and written about professional liability issues, risk management for professionals and litigation techniques and practice. He is licensed to practice law in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In addition to his practice, Jeff is Chairman of Swartz Campbell's Management Committee and chairs the firm's Professional Liability Group. Jeff is a former Co-Chair of the Professional Responsibility Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, former Co-Vice Chair of the Professional Liability Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and past Chair of the Professional Liability Committee of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. A graduate of Hampshire College (B.A., 1983), he earned his law degree from Temple University School of Law (J.D., 1987). He is licensed to practice law in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

WILLIAM T. SALZER has concentrated his practice for over twenty years in the areas of employment law, insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. A substantial part of Mr. Salzer's practice includes representing and advising primary and excess insurers in complex insurance coverage claims involving risks under commercial general liability, professional, environmental, property and casualty, fidelity and workers' compensation policies. Mr. Salzer provides timely and comprehensive insurance coverage opinions for risks nationwide. Mr. Salzer assists insurers in drafting policy endorsements to respond to changing legal developments and to foster new business in targeted markets. Prior to joining Swartz Campbell, Mr. Salzer was a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor with responsibility for enforcement of occupational safety and wage and hour laws, representation of the government in black lung benefit claims and defense of union grievances. A graduate of University of Virginia (B.A., 1980), Mr. Salzer earned his law degree from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law in 1984. He also serves on the firm's Management Committee.

About Swartz Campbell LLC
Swartz Campbell LLC is a regional insurance defense firm providing legal services and counseling to insurers and self-insureds in litigated matters throughout the United States. Focusing its practice primarily on the East Coast, Swartz Campbell LLC attorneys have become leaders in their fields of expertise. Swartz Campbell attorneys are regularly called upon to take over or assist in complex matters involving issues of first impression. Many of the cases which form the basis of Pennsylvania law have their origin in the briefs and argument of Swartz Campbell attorneys. The firm has offices in Pennsylvania as well as in New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia and Delaware.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

City of Philadelphia Fire Department v. WCAB (Skaldek)

Philadelphia, PA -- (SBWIRE) -- 11/05/2018 -- Kristopher Kachline, Esquire, a partner at Swartz Campbell, earned a victory for municipal entities on October 17, 2018, when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted a common sense standard in occupational disease cases. The sharply-divided Court confirmed that a firefighter who is seeking benefits for cancer under the Workers' Compensation Act has a burden to prove that he or she was exposed to a carcinogen designated as a Group 1 carcinogen by the IARC and that the carcinogen at issue bears a general causal relationship to the cancer alleged to be an occupational disease.

In a hard-fought case, the Workers' Compensation Judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board both ruled that the City of Philadelphia firefighter, now Deputy Chief Scott Sladek, had little to no burden when he made a claim that he developed melanoma, an aggressive form of skin cancer, as a result of occupational exposure to carcinogens. The WCJ and the WCAB both ruled that Mr. Sladek only needed to prove that he was a firefighter for more than four years and came to the job cancer-free before the presumption of causation for occupational disease cases shifted the heavy burden to the City of Philadelphia to prove that his cancer was not caused by occupational exposure to carcinogens. Claimant's burden was easily overcome and the WCJ granted Mr. Sladek's claim. The WCAB affirmed both the standard applied and the overall outcome of the case.

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the City's arguments prevailed. The City argued that there is a burden on the firefighter to prove that he or she had occupational exposure to a carcinogen that bears a causal relationship to the cancer alleged to be an occupational disease. In a unanimous en banc opinion, the Commonwealth Court reversed the WCAB and the WCJ, citing a misinterpretation of the statutory language that appeared to be specifically selected by the General Assembly to place an initial burden on a firefighter.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion, in which four justices made up the majority, reflects a similar burden than that of the Commonwealth Court, though the Supreme Court chose different language to achieve the same goal. The majority states the burden as requiring "the claimant to establish a general causative link between the claimant's type of cancer and a Group 1 carcinogen." Chief Justice Saylor voted to affirm the Commonwealth Court's opinion, while Justices Mundy and Dougherty voted to reinstitute the non-existent burden offered by the WCJ and the WCAB. The burden expounded by the majority adopted a standard that gives municipalities the ability to defend frivolous claims, which would have been substantially increased if the Court adopted the WCJ's or WCAB's standard.

The second issue before the Court examined the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption, if applicable to a case. The Court held to a long-cited standard in occupational disease cases, which requires that the employer provide an expert opinion that includes an examination of the claimant's disease. An opinion challenging the concept of the presumption is not adequate to rebut. That opinion must offer a non-occupational alternative cause for the disease instead of simply implying that the disease is of unknown etiology.

The Court's ruling does not fundamentally change the way occupational disease cases are litigated. The Court did, however, provided some clarity into the types of evidence that are relevant to the initial burden stage and the rebuttal stage.

Most importantly, the Court remanded the matter for further consideration of whether the Frye Standard applies in workers' compensation cases. In other cases litigated by Mr. Kachline, judges and the intermediate appellate courts have accepted his argument that in fact the Frye standard does apply to expert testimony in workers' compensation cases and can serve to limit or exclude expert opinions that do not conform to generally accepted scientific methodologies.

To discuss this matter further, please contact Kristopher Kachline Esq. at (215) 299-4276.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm