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).
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).
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.