Francis X. Wickersham

Frank provides seasoned defense counsel to employers, insurance carriers and third-party administrators across the full spectrum of workers’ compensation matters. His practice blends deep legal knowledge with a solutions oriented approach that supports clients both inside and outside the courtroom. In addition to his litigation work, Frank regularly advises on risk management practices designed to prevent claims before they arise.

Clients value Frank’s ability to pair innovative legal strategy with real-world practicality, achieving favorable outcomes while reducing exposure and controlling costs.

An accomplished writer, Frank’s articles on trending issues impacting workers' compensation have appeared in various publications. He also provides monthly Pennsylvania case law updates for the firm's What's Hot In Workers' Comp newsletter. In addition, Frank is a frequent speaker for local and national employer and insurance industry groups. He is an active member of the Montgomery County Bar Association, the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance, and the RIMS Delaware Valley Chapter.

Frank received his undergraduate degree from Villanova University and his juris doctor from the Widener University School of Law.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers in America, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers (2023-2026)

Classes & Seminars Taught

•Reefer Madness: Medical Marijuana & Workers’ Compensation in 2026, RIMS National Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 6, 2026
•One Less Workers' Compensation Zombie in the Apocalypse, CLM Work Comp, Casualty & Risk Management Conference, Chicago, IL, May 18, 2023
•State of the Union - Medical Marijuana, Workers' Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit, Uncasville, Connecticut, January 24-25, 2023
•Protecting Against Unreasonable Medical Expenses and Fee Reviews, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
•Unique Workers' Compensation Aspects of Independent Contractors and Traveling Employees, Lorman Education Services webinar, December 16, 2021
•The URO Challenge and the Impact of Medical Marijuana, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 29, 2020
•Mitigating the Risk of Workplace Bullying, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
•Pot For Pain, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
•In a Pickle: The Implications of Protz, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
•Defense Counsel Wish List, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2016
•Aging Gracefully? The Senior Workforce and Impacts on Workers' Compensation, CLM Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, May 2016
•Doped Up: Implications of Compound Medications, Generic Drugs and Medical Marijuana, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
•Marijuana in Workers' Compensation - Medical and Legal Challenges, CLM 2015 Medical Legal Summit, Chicago, Illinois, June 3, 2015
•Medicare Liens and Set-Asides and Workers' Compensation Liens, Philadelphia Bar Association's Bench-Bar & Annual Conference, October 18, 2014
•Behind the Robe: An Interview With the Judges, Roadmap to Success - Understanding Workers' Compensation, Marshall Dennehey seminar, October 24, 2013
•Career Day, Upper Merion Middle School, 2011
•Case Law Update, Broadspire and Glaxosmithkline, 2010
•Navigating the Workers' Compensation Court Room, Berkley Midatlantic Group, 2010
•How to Distinguish Between ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation Actions, Wegmans, 2009
•Record Retention and E-Discovery, The Addis Group, 2009
•Legal Updates: A Survival Guide, Pennsylvania Self-Insurers Association Annual Meeting, 2008
•Impact of New Vocational Regulations on Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, 2007
•Impact of New Vocational Regulations on Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Claims Handling, Cambridge Integrated Services, 2007
•The Do's and Don'ts of Utilization Reviews, Montgomery Bar Association, 2007
•Career Day, Upper Merion Middle School, 2005
•Law Day, Caley Elementary School, 2002
•Law Day, Caley Elementary School, 2001
•Ethical Considerations in Workers' Compensation, Montgomery Bar Association, 2000
•Interplay Between Workers' Compensation and Liability, Insurance Society of Philadelphia, 1999
•Act 57 and its Impact On Workers' Compensation Litigation, Pottstown Hospital, February 1998

Published Works

•'Back to the Future: A Post-'Protz' Primer on Pre-'Protz' Law,' Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 11, 2022
•'Blurred Lines: A Breakdown of Conventional Workplace Boundaries During the Pandemic,' Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 5, 2021
•'Medical Marijuana: Reasonable and Necessary Medical Care for Injured Workers?' The Legal Intelligencer's Cannabis Law Supplement, May 27, 2020
•'Workers' Compensation Fraud Case Against Pharmacies & Physicians Dismissed by Court,' What's Hot in Workers' Comp--Special PA Alert, September 18, 2019
•' Pot for Pain: A Cannabis Conundrum in the Courts, ' CLM Magazine, September 2018
•'Much Anticipated Protz Decision Comes Down,' Philadelphia Bar Reporter, September 2017
•'Protz: Problems for Practitioners and Politicians,' Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 22, 2017
•'State of Confusion: Duffey v. WCAB and Pennsylvania’s Impaired Impairment Rating System,' Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 2017
•'Aging Gracefully? The Impact of a Senior Workforce on Workers' Compensation,' Workers' Compensation, page 28. August/September 2016
•'Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Carves Out Exception to Exclude Remedy Provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act For Late Manifesting Occupational Disease Claims,' ABA TIPS Workers’ Compensation And Employers’ Liability Law Committee Newsletter, Winter 2014
•Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2010-present
•'Legal Updates,' Pennsylvania Self-Insurers Association Newsletter, 2009-present
•'Ask an Expert,' Pennsylvania Self-Insurers Association Newsletter, January 2009
•Digest of Insurance Law, Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation, Best's Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, 2007-present
•Special Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Law Alerts, 2006-present
•Critical Case Summaries, Pennsylvania Self-Insurers Association Newsletter, 2006-2008
•What's Hot in Workers' Comp, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Department newsletter, 2002-present
•'Decisions Impact Workers' Comp Benefits: Court Focuses on Release Agreement, Length of Employment,' The Legal Intelligencer, March 2001
•'Independent Contractor or Employee: Supreme Court Rolls Over Controversial Commonwealth Court Decision Holding That Federal and State Motor Carrier Regulations Require Finding of Employment,' Defense Digest, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 2001
•'Lykins: The Supreme Court Eliminates Unemployment Compensation Credit for pre-Act 44 Injuries,' Counterpoint, January 1999
•'Act 44 and Pre-Amendment Injuries: Banic Breaks the Mold,' PSIA Workers' Compensation Newsletter, March 1996
•'Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Update,' Counterpoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, June 2002-present

Results

The defense successfully proves flaw in claimant’s expert testimony

We successfully defended a Claim Petition on behalf of a national trucking company where the claimant alleged a disabling aggravation of a pre-existing cervical condition from a fall at work. Our thorough review of the medical records and the presentation of the evidence convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation. While providing the requisite direct testimony, on cross examination, the claimant’s expert admitted when he first saw the claimant one month after the work incident, the claimant had a head droop from cervical fusion surgery five months before the date of injury, and said that surgery “unrelated” to the work injury would be needed to correct it. This was inconsistent with the expert’s direct examination testimony, which was that the work incident had caused the head droop. Further, with the employer’s expert, who reviewed the testimony of the claimant’s expert and reviewed all medical records pre- and post-incident, we were able to establish that the opinion of the claimant’s expert was flawed, pointing out that the claimant’s expert failed to perform a side-by-side comparison of pre-injury diagnostic studies to post-injury studies, which would indicate whether the head droop was a slow progression from the prior surgery or due to a traumatic incident. The Judge found that the claimant’s expert failed to adequately explain what he saw in the studies completed after the work incident that supported his theory on causation.

Successfully Defended a Claim Petition on Behalf of a National Trucking Company

We successfully defended a claim on behalf of our client where the answer was late without a reasonable excuse. However, we persuaded the workers’ compensation judge that the claim petition was not well-pled as to the main allegation. We further convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

June 19, 2026

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy. In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy. The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part:Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Legislation Proposed to Reduce the Cost of Prescription Topical Drugs

June 8, 2026

In March, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1215 was introduced in an effort to address the high cost of prescription topical drugs. According to the bill’s sponsor, the issue is excessive reimbursement rates for topical drugs that are essentially alternate versions of readily available, less expensive over the counter drugs. A study performed by The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), shows that Pennsylvania has the highest share of prescription reimbursements and the highest average quarterly payments for topical drugs. The proposed bill would provide for payment for each ingredient separately, instead of reimbursing a single inflated price, deny payment if an ingredient lacks a valid National Drug Code, limit total reimbursement to $400 per 30 day supply no matter what ingredients are used, ban reimbursement for compound drugs that duplicate existing commercial drugs, and add a flat $20 compounding fee for pharmacies or physicians who prepare the medication. The goal? To eliminate inflated billing practices and reduce costs for employers and insurers. Currently, the bill is in committee. We will monitor the proposed legislation as it advances and provide updates as to any significant developments that may occur.

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025

Events

Conference

RISKWORLD 2026

May 3-6, 2026

Philadelphia, PA

Sara W. Mazzolla and Francis X. Wickersham