.or marginal petitions :and defenses.” WCJ Opinion, 10/16/2014, at 6. This emboldening qf employers,. in turn, would have a Schilling effect” on the .willingness of- a claimant’s attorneys to assert that an insurer unreasonably contested its liability. Id. (stating that “orders of disbursement would hate a chilling éfféet ón injured worker attorneys demanding fees and judges awarding the same”). Accordingly, the WCJ construed thé Act to preclude disgorgement from a claimant’s attorney and denied the County’s petition. ' The WCAB affirmed and .the County appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that it could recover the improperly awarded attorney’s fees under that court’s decision in Barrett v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sunoco, Inc.), 987 A.2d 1280, 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (<HOLDING>). In a published opinion, a three-judge panel
holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees holding that an order by the trial court remanding the cause to the agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed by the agency was not a final and appealable order because it did not terminate the litigation between the parties on the merits holding that the employer was entitled to an order requiring the claimants counsel to repay the erroneously awarded litigation costs holding that a plaintiff awarded advancement after litigation should only be entitled to an indemnification of those expenses reasonably proportionate to the level of success he achieved in the litigation holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute