Franklin & Prokopik welcomes 2024 by congratulating five attorneys who have been promoted to principal and one promoted to counsel. These attorneys have helped elevate the firm as a standout in the legal field, the courtroom, and with clients and colleagues. Please join us in congratulating these attorneys and thanking them for their hard work!

Principal

Neal Adkins concentrates his practice in the areas of workers’ compensation and employers’ liability, representing employers and insurers at the administrative hearing and appellate levels. A seasoned litigation attorney, Neal spent nearly 15 years representing claimants and plaintiffs before joining F&P in 2014. His experience during this time enabled him to gain a deep understanding of the tactics used by both parties, and he is able to utilize this as a way to counter strategies.

Cindy Armstrong represents employers and insurers in workers’ compensation matters before the Workers’ Compensation Commission and courts throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. She has been practicing law for almost 17 years, and all of her legal experience has been in the workers’ compensation industry. Before joining F&P, Cindy was a partner at a private workers’ compensation firm.

Michael Bennett brings nearly two decades of legal experience. Since joining Franklin and Prokopik in 2015, Mike has litigated hundreds of cases at the Workers’ Compensation Commission and over a dozen jury and bench trials throughout the state. He has also briefed and argued matters before the Maryland appellate courts. Mike has returned several defense jury trial verdicts and victories at the appellate courts.

Robert Hunt, Jr. joined F&P’s Delaware office in 2013, concentrating his practice in workers’ compensation and employers’ liability. He has experience representing clients at all stages of the litigation process, from hearings before the Industrial Accident Board and appeals to the Delaware Superior and Supreme Court to settlement and mediation. His clients primarily include employers, insurers, and third-party administrators from companies of all sizes across various industries.

Eric Scott Thompson concentrates his practice on representing the rights of business and individual defendants in civil actions and, in doing so, has tried cases before all levels of courts in Delaware in addition to administrative boards. He is an adjunct instructor at Wilmington University and volunteers his time for Delaware Volunteer Litigation Services, representing indigent clients in guardianship matters.

Counsel

Melissa McGaunn

After a five-day jury trial in the US District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, Firm Principals David A. Skomba and Tamara B. Goorevitz, along with Firm Associate Jessica B. Pupkin, obtained a defense judgment in favor of Six Flags America on November 5, 2023.

The case, Balchi v. Six Flags America LP, involved a serious multi-ligamentous knee and related peroneal nerve injury incurred on a water attraction in Hurricane Harbor that resulted in several surgeries and over $100,000 in past medical expenses.  The plaintiff was forced to concede that the ride itself was safe but argued that he was not properly warned/instructed how to ride.  Six Flags was able to show, using the expert testimony of nationally recognized biomechanical engineer Douglas Morr of SEA, that the accident could not have happened unless the plaintiff failed to follow the ride instructions that he conceded were given to him.  The jury agreed, and after several hours of deliberations, returned a defense verdict in favor of the Park.

The plaintiff argued that the jury should award some $815,000 in damages in closing.  Six Flags trusted F&P’s recommendation that the matter, a classic “high damages, low liability” case, should be tried and that trust resulted in the defense verdict and judgment.

A new reported opinion from the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) was issued earlier this month as it relates to occupational deafness claims.  The ACM was tasked with determining whether the last injurious exposure rule applies both to insurers and employers and if it applies to hearing loss claims.

F&P Counsel Mike Bennett represented the appellee, the City of Laurel, and delivered oral arguments at the ACM.  The appellant was the insurance company that provided coverage for Laurel during the majority, but not the entirety, of the claimant’s employment with them several decades ago.  Despite there being no dispute that the employment with Laurel contributed to the claimant’s hearing loss, the appellant argued that they were not responsible for covering the claim since they did not insure Laurel at the time of the claimant’s last injurious exposure with them. The appellant posited that the last injurious exposure rule applies only to insurers, and not employers, in hearing loss cases.

The ACM rejected the appellant’s argument and held that the last injurious exposure rule applies equally to employers and insurers; and that the last injurious exposure rule does not apply to hearing loss claims. In reaching its conclusion, the appellate court went through the legislative history of the various statutes at play, the fact that §19-402(b)(5) of the Insurance Article explicitly states that an award against an employer is also binding against its insurer, and also rejected the public policy arguments advanced by the appellant.