Download PDF

Timothy F. Coffey


NJ – Cherry Hill | PA – Philadelphia
T: 856.382.2090 | F: 856.751.1230


Tim is a certified specialist by the Pennsylvania Bar Association Section of Workers’ Compensation Law authorized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He has extensive experience litigating work injury cases and has been defending casualty litigation claims in Pennsylvania and New Jersey since 1991.

Tim counsels clients on compliance with workers’ compensation and related federal and state disability laws. Additionally, he has tried to verdict more than 200 workers’ compensation matters, and successfully settled hundreds of other cases. Tim also has presented oral argument and written briefs before the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. His practice has provided him a unique perspective in counseling employers and insurers on cross state workers’ compensation disputes and multi-jurisdictional matters.

Tim’s wide-ranging experience has provided him the opportunity to handle casualty claims as a claims adjuster, an arbitrator in civil matters with the Philadelphia Court of Common Plea, as counsel in large insurance defense firms and experience in third party personal injury litigation. While in law school Tim clerked for the Industrial Commission of Ohio where he evaluated workers’ compensation claims under that state’s compensation scheme.


  • Limited an award on compensation benefits to an injured worker who, while sustaining an injury in New Jersey, insisted upon bringing his claim in Pennsylvania where the judge found dual jurisdiction. In so finding, the judge lengthened the injured workers’ period of employment, including periods of layoff, establishing a continuous employment relationship that resulted in a finding of an average weekly wage of only $81.23 and corresponding compensation rate of $73.11, which further granted the employer a substantial credit of over $40,000 for benefits paid under New Jersey’s workers’ compensation law. The decision was significant in that the injured worker forfeited his right to obtain a permanency award in New Jersey that would have been far greater than any wage benefits that he was limited to in Pennsylvania.
  • Janson v. W.C.A.B. (EM Force, Inc.), 49 A.3d 458 (Pa. Commw. 2012), app. den. 54 A.3d 351 (Pa. 2012)
  • Successfully argued that an employer’s failure to file a timely answer to a claimant’s petition for benefits was not equivalent to a default judgment rather, an employer could still present rebuttal evidence to any element of the claim that was not well pled, including the continuation of disability. Prior to the decision, the courts had interpreted a late answer as equivalent to a default and required an employer to accept liability and prove an injured workers’ full recovery for work availability in a compensation system that essentially provides for only wage loss benefits.
    Heraeus Electro Nite Company v. W.C.A.B., (Ulrich), 697 A.2d 603 (Pa. Commw. 1997)
  • Successfully argued case involving the issue of whether a decision by the Philadelphia Civil Service Commission was to be given preclusive effect in a companion workers’ compensation proceeding based on principles of collateral estoppel between administrative agencies. The injured worker was afforded additional rights under the City’s compensation system that is layered upon the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. The injured worker elected to pursue her statutory remedies after the City determined that she was capable of returning to work and her wage loss benefits were ended.
    Logue v. W.C.A.B. (City of Philadelphia)
    , 660 A.2d 175 (Pa. Commw. 1995)