Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence

Compare Workers' Compensation law firms in Philadelphia, PA

Philly Personal Injury Lawyer Jeffrey H. Penneys, PC (84.4/100), Zavodnick & Lasky - Personal Injury Lawyers Philadelphia (80.8/100), Pearson Koutcher Law (79.3/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 18 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Philadelphia workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

18qualified offices
6,315review texts analyzed
70.3median evidence score
36%of discovered offices qualified

Release 2026.08.12-r4 · fixed cohort · published 2026-08-12 · minimum publication gate: 8 qualified offices

Fast comparison

Top five by Review Evidence Score

Open side-by-side comparison →
Top five Philadelphia workers' compensation offices by Review Evidence Score
Rank / officeScoreRatingTracked reviewsTexts analyzedPractice evidenceMaps visibility
#1Philly Personal Injury Lawyer Jeffrey H. Penneys, PC 84.4 5 246 239 Published practice evidence #24
#2Zavodnick & Lasky - Personal Injury Lawyers Philadelphia 80.8 4.9 181 159 Published practice evidence #8
#3Pearson Koutcher Law 79.3 4.9 311 255 Profile + review context #1
#4McMenamin & Wing 76.9 5 89 77 Profile + review context #41
#5Stern & Cohen, P.C. 76.2 4.8 374 322 Profile + review context #9

Maps visibility is shown separately and is never used to calculate the Review Evidence Score.

Leading office profiles

Each profile combines score depth, practice-signal basis, and a separate visibility observation. Read the office page before making a shortlist.

#4 in this cohort

McMenamin & Wing

76.9score
Rating
5/5
Analyzed
77
Maps
#41

Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#5 in this cohort

Stern & Cohen, P.C.

76.2score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
322
Maps
#9

Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#10 in this cohort

Rosenbaum Injury Law

69.6score
Rating
4.9/5
Analyzed
173
Maps
#45

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

What this market reveals

Market depth

Evidence beyond the first 20 results

5 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 13 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.

Review concentration

Top five hold 13.7%

The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 13.7% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 1616.4, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.

How practice and review evidence differ

For workers-compensation comparisons, the practice-evidence gate links included profiles to public practice language or sufficient context-classified review evidence after the review input gate. This supports consistent market comparison from available public signals. It does not show specialization, credentials, legal ability, expected results, or whether an office is suitable for a specific worker’s situation.

The practice gate decides whether an office belongs in this comparison. The Review Evidence Score then compares public-rating, depth, recommendation, communication, public owner-response, consistency, and low-concern signals. Neither step evaluates legal skill or likely results.

Maps visibility stays separate

“Best observed position” is the strongest discovery position captured across the fixed query collection. Multiple offices can show the same value when observations came from different queries or backfills. It is never a score input.

Read the complete methodology →

Complete published cohort

All 18 qualified offices

Explore this market’s data →
All qualified Philadelphia workers' compensation offices in Review Evidence Score order
RankOfficeScoreRatingTrackedAnalyzedEvidenceMaps
#1Philly Personal Injury Lawyer Jeffrey H. Penneys, PC84.45246239moderate#24
#2Zavodnick & Lasky - Personal Injury Lawyers Philadelphia80.84.9181159moderate#8
#3Pearson Koutcher Law79.34.9311255strong#1
#4McMenamin & Wing76.958977minimum#41
#5Stern & Cohen, P.C.76.24.8374322strong#9
#6Krasno Krasno & Onwudinjo75.84.8751566strong#4
#7Philadelphia Injury Lawyers P.C.75.756255minimum#6
#8Liberty Bell Workers Compensation Lawyers72.24.99991minimum#2
#9Law Offices of Eric A. Shore71.14.8878688strong#5
#10Rosenbaum Injury Law69.64.9231173moderate#45
#11Philadelphia Personal Injury Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Broderick67.34.9448240moderate#12
#12Martin Law66.84.7325270strong#14
#13Solomon, Sherman, Gabay, Briskin & Sherman66.84.9273244moderate#26
#14Cousin Benny644.914394minimum#19
#15Rand Spear: The Accident Lawyer61.34.7756594strong#3
#16Pond Lehocky60.84.83,0851,860extensive#16
#17The Rothenberg Law Firm53.44.5150104moderate#13
#18Lundy Law36.94.2347284strong#44

Questions about this comparison

Which Philadelphia workers' compensation firms lead this review-evidence comparison?

Philly Personal Injury Lawyer Jeffrey H. Penneys, PC (84.4/100), Zavodnick & Lasky - Personal Injury Lawyers Philadelphia (80.8/100), Pearson Koutcher Law (79.3/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 18 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Philadelphia workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

How many Philadelphia offices qualified for this comparison?

18 of 50 discovered office profiles passed both the review-evidence and practice-signal gates. Law Leaderboard requires at least 8 qualified offices before publishing a market page.

Does Google Maps position affect the Law Leaderboard score?

No. Maps visibility is reported as a separate discovery observation and never enters the Review Evidence Score.

Does appearing here prove that a firm specializes in workers' compensation matters?

No. Practice inclusion requires explicit public-profile language or sufficient context-classified review evidence. It is not a credential, specialization certification, endorsement, or outcome claim.

Sources, freshness, and limitations

Source research release llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1 was materialized 2026-08-12T08:00:43Z. Practice classification uses practice-signal-v1.0.0; scoring uses review-evidence-v1.0.0. The public consumer release was published 2026-08-12.

  • The fixed discovery cohort is not a census of every law office in the market.
  • Google Maps discovery positions are captured observations, may repeat across queries, and are not scoring inputs.
  • Public reviews are incomplete, can change, and do not establish legal skill or predict a case outcome.
  • Practice evidence reflects explicit public-profile language or classified review context; it is not a credential or specialization finding.

More Workers' Compensation markets

View every published workers' compensation market →