Statutory Employer Test Applied in the Context of the Provision of Professional Services

In the case of Smith v. Supportive Concepts for Families, Inc., No. 21-2038 (C.P. Berks Co. Jan. 25, 2025 Nevius, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a provider of outpatient psychiatric services in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged that she was assaulted by a patient during a psychiatric medical examination.

The Plaintiff was attacked when she visited a group home owned and operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knew of the assailant’s violent pre-disposition but failed to adequate safeguard against harm.

In significant part, the Defendant relied upon the statutory employer defense in its Motion for Summary Judgment. The court noted that there was no dispute that, at the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was an employee of the separate entity that sent her to this facility to complete the medical examination. 

Nevertheless, the Defendant in this case was asserting immunity as a statutory employer of the Plaintiff pursuant to the five (5) part test set forth in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930).

The court in this Smith case noted that the McDonald factors are under current review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court refused to speculate on whether or not the statutory employee test would survive that Supreme Court review. The court instead applied the McDonald factors to arrive at its decision to deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Notably, this court noted that the Defendant did not provide any authority for the application of the McDonald factors in the context of the provision of professional services. The court noted that the McDonald test is typically used in connection with construction cases.

The court in this Smith case also noted that, in any event, the Defendant had not offered sufficient evidence to establish that it met all of the factors of the statutory employer test.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

The court additionally denied the defense arguments set forth under the assumption of the risk doctrine and relative to the alleged exculpatory release involved in the case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 23, 2025).

Scope of Statutory Employer Doctrine Reviewed

In the case of Hernandez v. Independence Constructors Corp., No. 1911 EDA 2023 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 19, 2023 Foglietta, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in case involving a work-related injury sustained by the Plaintiff in a case where he sued certain entities.

The trial court stated in its Rule 1925 Opinion that its judgment should be affirmed where the Defendant, which subcontracted the Plaintiff’s employer for construction work was not a statutory employer entitled to employer immunity under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

In this regard, the court stated that it had concluded that the Defendant employer did not meet the second prong of the test set out in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). More specifically, the Defendant employer did not control the job site where the Plaintiff was injured.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” Law.com (March 27, 2024).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reviews Scope of Statutory Employer Status for General Contractors

In the case of Yoder v. McCarthy Construction, Inc., No. 1605 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, 2023 Bender, P.J.E., Panella, P.J., Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Bender, P.J.E.), the court addressed issues of whether or not a Defendant was a worker’s compensation statutory employer and, therefore, immune from any tort liability asserted by the Plaintiff, who was an employee of a subcontractor.

According to the Opinion, the jury in the underlying matter had entered a verdict for over $5.5 million dollars against the Defendant on the personal injury claims presented.

In reviewing the Worker's Compensation Law, 77 Pa.C.S.A. Section 462, the Superior Court noted that general contractors take on secondary liability for the payment of worker's compensation for the employees of any subcontractors.  In the event a subcontractor defaults on securing worker's compensation coverage, then the coverage purchased by the general contractor would apply.  In this regard, the general contractor is considered under the law to be a statutory employer of the subcontractor's employee.

In exchange for this secondary liability taken on by a general contractor under the law, the general contractor is granted immunity from any tort liability arising out of the same incident.   

The court found that, given that the Plaintiff had received worker’s compensation benefits, the Plaintiff was judicially estopped from denying his employee status. The court noted that the record confirmed that the Plaintiff was an employee of the subcontractor at issue, and not an independent contractor.

As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a statutory employer status is not limited to general contractors at a job site.

The court additionally noted that worker’s compensation immunity, including with respect to the issue of whether or not a Defendant is a statutory employer, is a jurisdictional issue that cannot be waived. 

The court additionally noted that whether a Defendant is a statutory employer is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.

In the end, the Superior Court found that the Defendant was a statutory employer and was therefore immune from any liability.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Middle District Court Rejects Argument That Plaintiff's Claims Against Trucking Defendant Are Pre-Empted By Federal Law

In the case of Ciotolo v. Star Transp. and Trucking, No. 3:19-CV-00753-MEM (M.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020 Mannion, J.), the court ruled that Pennsylvania's general tort law is not pre-empted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAA").

This matter arose out of a tractor trailer accident during which the Plaintiff's vehicle was hit from the rear.

The trucking Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff's claims were pre-empted by the FAAA, since the claims related to the Defendant's core services of brokering the shipment of goods in interstate commerce. 

This argument was rejected by the Court.  Although the Court relied upon Third Circuit precedent, this decision by Judge Malachy E. Mannion may be the first decision of its kind out of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Harry McGrath of the Kingston, PA law firm of Fellerman & Ciarimboli for bringing this case to my attention.

No Respondeat Superior Liability For Criminal Acts of Employees

In its recent decision in the case of Spitsin v. WGM Transportation, 2014 Pa.Super. 162 (Pa. Super. July 29, 2014 Ford Elliott, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., Wecht, J.) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that an employer was not liable for a cab driver’s assault of a non-paying passenger where the record revealed that the employee used excess and dangerous force in an effort to collect the fare.  

According to the Opinion, after a taxi ride, the Plaintiff attempted to flee and avoid paying a fare after a taxi ride when he was restrained by a bystander and then kicked and punched by the taxi driver.   The Plaintiff was transported to a nearby hospital where a diagnostic study revealed a hairline fracture of his jaw.  

The Plaintiff sued WGM Transportation, the employer of the taxi driver, on a theory of respondeat superior. 

The employer filed Preliminary Objections arguing that an employer was not liable for an assault and battery by an employee upon another as such conduct was beyond the scope of the employment.  The employer also noted that the employee committed an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so dangerous as to leave the employer totally without responsibility.

The trial court sustained the Preliminary Objections of the employer and dismissed the Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim.   The Superior Court affirmed it.

Judge David N. Wecht
Pennsylvania Superior Court

In his Superior Court Opinion, Judge David N. Wecht reiterated the law of the doctrine of respondeat superior that an employer may indeed be liable for the acts of its employees committed during the course of and within the scope of employment.   The court noted, however, that where an employee commits an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so dangerous as to be totally without responsibility or reason, the employer was not responsible under such circumstances.  

According to the record, a bystander had restrained the Plaintiff as he attempted to flee and there was nothing in the record indicating that the bystander’s restraint was insufficient to keep the Plaintiff at bay until the fare could be collected by the taxi driver or until the police could be summoned to take control.  

The court agreed that, when the taxi driver punched and kicked the Plaintiff while he was being held on the ground and unable to defend himself, the taxi driver departed from the scope of his employment in that there is no evidence that the employer instructed its taxi drivers to attack restrained and vulnerable passengers who refuse to pay their fares.  

The Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court was correct in finding, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for vicarious liability against the employer under the circumstances presented.

Anyone wishing to read this Opinion in the Spitsin case may click this LINK  

It is noted that Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge David N. Wecht will be a featured presenter at the upcoming Tort Talk Expo 2014 set to take place on September 26, 2014 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 


Click HERE to view the Agenda for the CLE seminar and, if interested in attending, please click HERE to Register online, or contact me at dancummins@cmcast.net.

 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Scope of Statutory Employer Immunity

In its recent decision in the case of Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 2014 WL 1236499 (Pa. March 26, 2014) (Opinion by Saylor, J.) (concurring Opinion followed by Baer, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that neither a subcontractor nor a subcontractor’s sole shareholder was an “independent contractor” relative to the statutory employer provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. 

 

By way of background, a subcontractor in this matter brought a negligence action against the general contractor to recover for injuries alleged sustained at a work site from a 14 foot fall.  

 

After a trial in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, the trial court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs and denied the general contractor’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV).   The general contractor appealed the Supreme Court ruled as noted above.  

 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that, pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act, general contractors are deemed to bear secondary liability for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to injured workers employed by their subcontractors and, in this sense, general contractors are considered to be “Statutory Employers” relative to workers’ compensation liability, even though they are not common-law employers of the subcontractor’s employees.

 

Accordingly, the court went on to note that such Statutory Employers, including general contractors, could enjoy a measure of immunity from liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act for tort claims pertaining to work-related injuries.  

 

The Supreme Court went on to note that the governing law should have been applied by the trial court at the summary judgment stage before this case ever reached a trial in which the jury ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.  

 

In light of this decision in the case of Patton v. Worthington Associates, many general contractor and subcontractor Defendants in construction cases where a construction worker has been injured on the job have been amending their Answer and New Matter, or in federal court, their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, to include the statutory employer defense in order to preserve that defense to be raised at the Motion for Summary Judgment stage of the case.  

 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of Justice Saylor's majority opinion in the case of Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., may click this LINK.  Justice Baer's concurring opinion may be viewed HERE.