Defendant Found to Be Statutory Employer and Entitled to Immunity

In the case of Edie v. George Junior Republic In Pennsylvania, No. 546 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. March 27, 2026 Cohn Jubelirer, P.J., Covey, J. Wallis, J.) (Op. by Covey, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court addressed the application of the statutory employer doctrine in a third party negligence case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant operated a youth residential institution and contracted with a food service company to provide food services at the facility.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the food services facility, was cleaning a grill while working in the kitchen at the facility when the Plaintiff was caused to fall and suffer injuries.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the youth residential institution alleging negligence due to unsafe conditions in the kitchen.

The Defendant youth residential institution responding by asserting immunity under the Worker’s Compensation Act as a statutory employer.

The trial court agreed with the Defendant and dismissed the case under a summary judgment motion. The Plaintiff appealed.

The Commonwealth Court applied the McDonald test, which requires that five (5) elements be established to establish a statutory employer status. Those elements include the existence of a contract with the owner, proof that the premises were occupied or controlled by the employer, a subcontract between the parties at issue, and proof that part of the employer’s regular business was entrusted to the subcontractor, and, finally, that the Plaintiff was an employee of the subcontractor.

Here, the Plaintiff only contested the second element, arguing that the Defendant did not have the necessary level of control or occupancy to meet this element of the doctrine.

The appellate court found that the youth residential institution occupied the premises given that its food services director was present daily and oversaw the food services provider’s operations by ensuring compliance with contractual and regulatory requirements. 

The court additionally noted that the residential facility’s employees were also regularly present in the kitchen. It was additionally noted that the residential facility maintained control over the kitchen's equipment and operation.

As such, the Commonwealth Court agreed that the Defendant residential facility had met the occupancy requirement, thereby satisfying that contested element of the McDonald test.

Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant as a statutory employer of the Plaintiff.  As a statutory employer, the Defendant facility was found to be entitled to immunity under the Worker’s Compensation Act from the claims presented in the third party personal injury liability lawsuit.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 14, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Pylyp Sukhenko on www.unsplash.com.

Factual Issues on Question Presented Compel Superior Court To Quash Appeal Under the Collateral Order Doctrine

In the case of Hailu v. Giorgio Fresh Company, No. 2988 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super Feb. 25, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Panella, P.J.E., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed an appeal under the collateral order doctrine in a third party claim arising out of a work injury.

More specifically, the Superior Court quashed an appeal from a trial court’s denial of summary judgment under which a Defendant had asserted worker’s compensation immunity under the borrowed employee doctrine.

The Defendant employer was arguing that, with respect to the Plaintiff’s work place accident, the Plaintiff, who had been hired as a temporary employee from a staffing company should be considered to be a “borrowed employee” and that, therefore, the Defendant employer was immune from suit under the provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act, which provided for the exclusive remedies to injured parties for work place injuries.

After the trial court denied the Defendant’s Motion without an Opinion, the Defendant filed an appeal and asserted that the Order was a collateral order capable of being appealed under Pa. R.A.P. 313. The Defendant asserted that the issue of whether the Plaintiff was a borrowed employee was separable from the main cause of action and was too important to be denied immediate review given that the issues involved immunities afforded under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

The Superior Court disagreed. The Superior Court found that the Defendant’s appeal did not present a purely legal question, but rather a factual one regarding whether the Defendant employer had sufficient control over the Plaintiff employee’s work, which was central to the determination of whether the borrowed employee doctrine applied.

The Superior Court noted that the trial court had ruled that the evidence was insufficient to establish the borrowed employee doctrine such that there was an indication that further factual development was necessary at the lower court level.

The Superior Court ultimately concluded that the issue of whether the Plaintiff was a borrowed employee required a fact-based inquiry, which was not a suitable topic for collateral review of a matter on appeal. Accordingly, the Superior Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order of the trial court.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed with the Superior Court emphasizing that the collateral order doctrine must be narrowly applied in order to prevent the erosion of the final order rule regarding appeals.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 17, 2026).

Source of image: Photo by Jim Wilson on www.unsplash.com.

Pa. Supreme Court Finds Issues of Fact Regarding Immunity Defense in Third Party Liability Case Arising Out of a Work Injury

In the case of Brown v. Gaydos, No. 22 WAP 2024 (Pa. Feb. 18, 2026) (Op. by Mundy, J.)(Brobson, J., concurring and dissenting)(Wecht, J. dissenting), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of a Defendant employer in a third party litigation based upon §205 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. §72, which provides for co-employee immunity, was appropriate.

The court noted that, §205 of the Workers' Compensation Act provides that, “[i]f disability or death is compensable under this act, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such disability or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person disabled or killed, except for intentional wrong.

The court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Defendant employee’s allegedly negligent acts or omissions occurred while he was in the same employ as the Plaintiff that supported the trial court's denial of summary judgment. As such, the court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a workplace accident that occurred when the Plaintiff decedent was fatally injured by a skid loader which was owned by the Defendant employer. The decedent’s supervisor was not on the premises at the time of the incident.

After securing workers' compensation from his employer, the estate of the decedent pursued a third party claim against his employer and asserted that, among other acts, the employer and its employees were negligent in maintaining the skid loader and in failing to train or supervise the company’s employees in operating the machine.

The employer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserted that the Workers’ Compensation Act provided immunity from civil suit as either the decedent’s employer or co-employee.  In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that issues of fact should have compelled the trial court to deny the Motion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.

Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Wecht's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Pa. Supreme Court Rules Against Broad Application of Co-Employee Immunity Under the Workers’ Comp Act, “ By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Feb. 18, 2026).

ARTICLE: Out With the Old, In With the New: A Civil Litigation Year-End Review

The below article of mine appeared in the December 11, 2025 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission.

Expert Opinion // Civil Procedure

Out With the Old, In With the New: 

A Civil Litigation Year-End Review

By

Daniel E. Cummins

December 11, 2025

Over the past year, there was a steady flow of notable decisions handed down by the various state and federal courts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as another year of civil litigation jurisprudence goes down in the books. Those decisions are reviewed below.

Overall, some old rules have been ousted as no longer viable, and some new rules have been enunciated to guide civil litigation practice going forward.

Readers may secure more details on the decisions summarized below, as well as a copy of the actual court decisions referenced, by going to the Tort Talk Blog and typing the name of the plaintiff into the search box in the upper right-hand corner of the blog.

Good Cause for IME

In a decision that was handed down near the end of the previous year in the case of Verba v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 326 A.3d 973 (Pa. Super. 2024 ), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the standard for determining whether good cause exists to compel the Plaintiff to cooperate with a request for a medical examination under Pa.R.C.P. 4010.

The court noted that the requirement of good cause set forth in Rule 4010 is designed to protect parties against an unwarranted invasion of their privacy and to preclude the use of such a medical examination for improper purposes. Simply put, the court in Verba held that good cause can exist in a pending litigation if there is a controversy, or a dispute between the parties, regarding the validity of the plaintiff’s injury claims.

Allegations of Recklessness

The year 2025 began as 2024 ended—with state trial court judges looking past the fact that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state and allowing plaintiffs to plead recklessness and punitive damages claims in complaints with reckless abandon in all personal injury matters regardless of the facts involved. This trend continued throughout this year with trial court judges relying upon the errant Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in the case of Monroe v. CB H20, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc).

While the state trial court judges from all around the commonwealth continued to routinely allow claims of recklessness in every case, at least one federal district court judge said not so fast. In McKinney v. GM, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025), Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a partial motion to dismiss claims of punitive damages after finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.

The court noted that allegations of recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. In McKinney, the court found that the products liability complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the defendant allegedly became aware of it, or what actions the defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.

Baxter, applying Pennsylvania law, emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake or errors in judgment. The court found that the complaint in the McKinney case failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.

Attorney Discipline

The first notable decision handed down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over this past year was handed down in February. In the case of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney, [docket no. withheld by court] (Pa. Feb. 12, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof for a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of attorney misconduct. The court opted for a higher burden.

According to the opinion, prior to this ruling, the previously accepted standard of proof for disciplinary cases against attorneys was “a preponderance of the evidence through clear and satisfactory evidence.” In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the burden of proof of disciplinary cases going forward should be “clear and convincing evidence.”

In ruling in this fashion, the court noted that “attorney disciplinary proceedings are not civil disputes for money damages, and the public’s and the attorney’s interests are not clearly minimal.” The court otherwise noted that “disciplinary proceedings are not strictly civil nor criminal in nature, but rather have been styled as ‘quasi criminal.’” For these reasons, the court chose to go with a higher burden of proof.

New Jury Selection Rule Goes Into Effect

In April, the new Pa.R.C.P 220.3 went into effect on April 1 requiring trial court judges to be present in the courtroom for jury selections in civil cases unless the litigants opt out of the requirement. This rule was set to take effect on April 1, 2025, and can be found under Pa. R.C.P. 220.3.

Avenues of Recovery in Worker’s Compensation Cases Expanded

In May of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent with its decision in the case of Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board), 335 A.3d 1076 (Pa. May 30, 2025), in order to allow a new line of worker’s compensation claims to go forward.

In this decision, the Supreme Court created new law and cleared the way for the estates of those individuals who died as a result of work-related injuries to collect benefits related to claims for disfigurement and injury. The court overturned long-standing case law regarding whether specific loss benefits are payable after an employee’s death from causes related to the work injury.

Archaic Local Rule Overruled

In another decision of note from May of this year, the Superior Court struck down a trial court’s local rule.

In the case of Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, No. 1478 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2025), the archaic local rule at issue from the Pike County Common Pleas Court required original signatures on all filings with the court, which did not allow for electronic signatures.

In Scheibe, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the trial court had improperly refused to docket paperwork relative to the initial filing of the lawsuit. The prothonotary had rejected the filing because the documents contained only an electronic signature in violation of the local rules that required original signatures.

The appellate court first confirmed that there was no requirement in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for any filing to be hand-signed by a party or their attorney. Rather, the statewide Rules of Civil Procedure contemplated that a “signature” could include a computer-generated signature.

The Superior Court additionally held that, under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, documents mailed to the prothonotary’s office were deemed to be filed when received by that office as a litigant would have no control over when that office would stamp and process the filing. The Superior Court also confirmed that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly prohibited the rejection of a filing that complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure where that filing did not meet the requirements of a local rule.

For all of these reasons, the Superior Court agreed that the complaint was timely filed. In the process, the appellate court struck down the archaic local rule of court.

New Cellphone Law

While texting while driving has been banned in Pennsylvania since 2012, in June of this year, a new law went into effect that banned any and all cellphone use while driving on the roads of Pennsylvania. Under certain exceptions noted in the law, a driver may use a cellphone for emergency purposes. A driver may also use a mobile device if they pull off to the side of the road and stop where a vehicle may safely remain in a stopped position.

The law, known as “Paul Miller’s Law,” went into effect on June 5, 2025, and made it illegal to use a cellphone in your hands in any way while driving. The law even prohibits these activities even when one is stopped at a red light or in a traffic jam. Under the language of the law, it appears that an overhead bluetooth system can be used to make calls as long as one uses the buttons on the steering wheel and the dash and not by way of pushing buttons on the cellphone.

For the next year through June 2026, the penalty for a violation will be a written warning. Starting June 5, 2026, the penalty will be a summary offense with a $50 fine, plus court costs and other fees. Moreover, if a driver is convicted of both vehicular homicide and driving while distracted, they may be sentenced up to an additional five years in prison.

Gist of the Action Doctrine

In July, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the viability of the gist of the action doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligence claim cannot be recast in a complaint as a breach of contract claim and vice versa.

In the case of Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 2025 Pa. Super. 138 (Pa. Super. July 2, 2025) (en banc) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of whether the gist of the action doctrine should continue to be applied to contract actions as it has been for the past 26 years.

This case arose out of a nursing home malpractice claim. The plaintiff filed claims for both malpractice and breach of contract.

Despite a number of prior cases confirming that the gist of the action doctrine does apply as a defense where a breach of contract claim is added to a negligence claim, this en banc panel of the Superior Court concluded, after completing an exhaustive review of the case law allowing for alternative pleadings, that the gist of the action doctrine should no longer apply to prevent the pleading of an alternative breach of contact claim in a negligence action. Rather, the court noted that, under any set of facts, plaintiff could make claims for both negligence and breach of contact in the alternative wherever warranted.

This ruling eradicating this defense could prove important in those cases where a plaintiff’s negligence claim is potentially barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, but where the plaintiff attempts to keep the lawsuit alive by pleading, in the alternative, a breach of contract claim which has a four-year statute of limitations claim.

Another Archaic Local Rule Overruled

In August, the Superior Court struck down another archaic local rule in its decision in the case of Biros v. U Lock, No. 113 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025).

In Biros, the Superior Court vacated a trial court order out of the Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court of in which the trial court had denied, with prejudice, an appellant’s motion to file her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, nunc pro tunc.

The Superior Court noted that, Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(e)(2) bars any refusal by a trial court of an otherwise compliant pleading for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule pertaining to the electronic filing of legal papers. The appellate court found that Westmoreland County’s archaic requirement that notices of appeal could only be filed in person or by mail was such a local rule. Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the appellant’s initial filing was properly and timely filed and was sufficient to initiate the appeal.

Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Clarified

In September of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided clarity on the test to be applied in reviewing a petition to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.).

This matter arose out of a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five deaths and numerous injuries. The plaintiffs who resided in various locations across the country and abroad, filed personal injury lawsuits in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against several corporate defendants, all of which conducted business nationwide. The defendants sought to transfer the cases to Westmoreland County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement in the analysis was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the type of evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court otherwise clarified that a party seeking a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must identify the burdened witnesses and provide a general statement of their respective testimony. The Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner need not show that the testimony of the witnesses is “critical” or “necessary” to the defense. As such, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to transfer the cases out of Philadelphia County and to Westmoreland County as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Arbitration Clauses and Children

On the same day in September that it issued its decision in the Tranter case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a parent who signs an arbitration agreement cannot bind a nonsigning spouse or a minor child to the terms of that agreement.

The case of Shultz v. Skyzone, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), involved the claims brought on behalf of several minors who were injured at trampoline parks operated by Skyzone in Philadelphia. In each instance, only one parent had signed a “participation agreement, release, and assumption of the risk” on behalf of their child. That agreement contained an arbitration provision waiving the right to sue in court.

After the lawsuits for personal injuries were filed, the defendant filed petitions to compel arbitration, relying upon the signed agreements. The issue was litigated all the way up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that parents lacked the authority to bind a minor to an agreement to arbitrate, as this would deprive the minor of judicial protections and oversight designed to safeguard their interests. As noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also held that a parent who signs an arbitration agreement cannot bind a nonsigning parent, or minor child, to its terms.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the same decision on the same date in the consolidated case of Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, No. 24 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.).

Statutory Employer Doctrine Upheld

In October, in the case of Yoder v. McCarty Construction, 43 MAP (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the statutory employer doctrine under the Worker’s Compensation Act and rejected arguments from the plaintiff seeking to abolish this doctrine.

According to the opinion, the plaintiff suffered a workplace injury. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor. The general contractor asserted the defense of statutory employer immunity in the personal injury action arising out of the accident.

The Supreme Court began its decision by reaffirming the law behind the statutory employer doctrine that has been in effect in Pennsylvania since 1930 as enunciated in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424, 426 (Pa. 1930).

That long-standing law provides that, under Section 203 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. Section 462, a general contractor that hires a subcontractor to perform work on a jobsite is deemed to be an “employer” of employees of the subcontractor in certain circumstances. In those instances where the subcontractor does not make payment, the general contractor will be considered liable for the worker’s compensation payments. In exchange for this imposition of secondary liability on the general contractor, the act’s statutory employer provision in Section 203 of the act, 77 P.S. Section 52, extends to a general contractor the same tort immunity afforded to the subcontractor of the injured worker in any third-party lawsuit arising out of the same accident.

As noted, at the Supreme Court level in this Yoder case, the court rejected arguments by the plaintiff that the statutory employer doctrine should be rejected or that such immunity should be deemed to be waivable in certain circumstances.

Artificial Intelligence

In the year 2025, courts and litigators found a steady rise in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many aspects of the law. AI platforms have begun to be used to assist in the evaluation of cases and also with respect to legal research and brief writing.

Near the end of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an interim policy to guide judges and court personnel who desired to use AI in their day-to-day work.

This policy allows for judges and court personnel to utilize AI for summarizing documents, conducting preliminary legal research, and drafting initial versions of documents. These rules, which are compiled under a document entitled the “Interim Policy On The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel" was set to go into effect on Dec. 8, 2025.

It is anticipated that, in the near future, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may also come out with rules to guide attorneys on the proper use of AI in the practice of law relative to any filings with the courts.

In the Pennsylvania federal courts, Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has been leading the way by crafting a civil practice order that is issued in all of her matters that requires attorneys to identify any AI-created portions of their court filings and to certify to the court that any citations contained therein have been checked for accuracy.

As noted in the Aug. 14, 2025, the Pennsylvania Law Weekly article titled “AI and Its Proper Use in the Practice of Law,” by Daniel E. Cummins and Michael Cummins, a number of lawyers in Pennsylvania and across the country have been sanctioned for submitting fake legal citations, known as hallucinations, as a result of utilizing AI platforms for legal research and the writing of briefs and not checking the accuracy of such citations. Such issues have caused a need for the above rules as well as a rise in continuing legal education courses designed to educate attorneys to be careful in utilizing these emerging technologies.

New Book

Last but not least, it is noted that, over the past year, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) published an e-book titled Raising the Bar: A Practical Guide to the Practice of Law, written by Daniel E. Cummins. The book compiles articles written by me over the past 25 years providing practice and professionalism tips for lawyers and judges, many of which articles were originally published right here in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The book is designed to provide lawyers, whether they be new or experienced, with tips and reminders on how to improve their day-to-day practice of law and efforts at a work-life balance.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing partner at Cummins Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Contact him at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.

Reprinted with permission from the December 11, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms the Statutory Employer Doctrine

In the case of Yoder v. McCarty Construction, 43 MAP (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025) (Op. by Brobson, J.)(McCaffery, J., concurring), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the statutory employer doctrine under the Worker’s Compensation Act and rejected arguments from the Plaintiff seeking to abolish this doctrine.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff suffered a workplace injury when he fell through a hole during roofing work. The Plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor.

The general contractor asserted the defense of statutory employer immunity in the personal injury action arising out of the accident.

The Supreme Court began its decision by reaffirming the law behind the statutory employer doctrine that has been in effect in Pennsylvania since 1930.

That long-standing law provides that, under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), a general contractor that hires a subcontractor to perform work on a jobsite is deemed an “employer” that is secondarily liable to the injured employee of the subcontractor for the payment of compensation under the Act, provided that the subcontractor—the one primarily liable—fails to make payment. Section 302(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 462.

In exchange for this imposition of secondary liability, the Act’s statutory employer provision in Section 203 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 52, extends to a general contractor the same tort immunity afforded to the subcontractor of the injured worker.

At the Supreme Court level in this Yoder case, the court rejected arguments by the Plaintiff that the statutory employer doctrine should be rejected and/or that such immunity should be deemed to be waivable in certain circumstances. As noted, the Court rejected these arguments and instead reaffirmed that the statutory employer doctrine remains a valid part of Pennsylvania worker’s compensation law.

The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the general contractor satisfied the elements of the five (5) part statutory employer test as formulated back in 1930 in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424, 426 (Pa. 1930).

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice McCaffery can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Glen Ricketti of the Philadelphia office of the Margolis Edelstein law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Rejects Complaint Containing Shotgun Pleading Against All Defendants

In the case of Comer v. American Transmission Systems, Inc., No. 23-1464 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 2025 Hardy, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss where the Plaintiff engaged in improper shotgun pleading in a Complaint.

In this matter, the Complaint contained multiple counts that each adopted all of the allegations of all preceding Counts.  The Complaint also asserted multiple claims against multiple Defendants without specifying which of the Defendants were more specifically responsible for which alleged acts or omissions. The court found that the Complaint did not allow for an understanding as to which claims were brought against which of the Defendants.

In its decision, the court separately reaffirmed the Pennsylvania law that holds that a Defendant hiring an independent contractor is not liable for the injuries sustained by that independent contractor’s employees from conditions that were equally obvious to the independent contractor and its employees.

Here, on the liability issues pled, the court found that the allegations in the Complaint did not establish any superior knowledge on the part of the Defendant at issue, any peculiar risk, or any retained control. Rather, the court found the allegations to be legal conclusion not supported by any specific facts.

Lastly, the court affirmed the general rule of law that, given that the Plaintiff’s estate had obtained a worker’s compensation recovery, the estate was not permitted to sue the decedent’s employer in tort.

The court did allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a more specific Amended Complaint.

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 for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Wesley Tingey on www.unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Expands Ability of Claimants to Secure Recoveries in Work-Related Fatal Accident Matters

In the case of Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., (WCAB), No. 3 MAP 2024 (Pa. May 30, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent in order to allow a new available of worker’s compensation claims to go forward. 

In this decision, the Supreme Court created new law and cleared the way for the estates of those individuals who died from work-related injuries to collect benefits related to claims for disfigurement and injury.

Justice Christine Donohue authored the Opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Deborah Todd and Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy and Daniel McCaffery. Justices David Wecht and Kevin Brobson dissented in separate Opinions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.

Justice Wecht's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Brobson's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Pa. High Court Rejects Years of Precedent Barring Recovery of Benefits For Workers Who Died From Work-Related Injuries,” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (May 30, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses Applicability of Immunity Afforded To Third Party Defendants In Work Injury Cases

In the case of Brown v. Gaydos, No. 1132 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Dec. 7, 2023 en banc) (Op. by McCaffery, J.)(Stabile, J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed issues regarding whether or not a Defendant was statutorily immune from liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act as the Plaintiff’s employer or co-employee under the facts presented.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant individual for injuries that the Plaintiff sustained while operating a skid loader that the Defendant owned.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was an employee of a company which the Defendant partly owned.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had previously made a successful claim for workers’ compensation from the company that both men worked for at the time of the incident. The Plaintiff then filed a civil lawsuit alleging that the individual Defendant failed to properly maintain the skid loader or train the Plaintiff on how to use the device.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that he was immune to the personal injury lawsuit under the Workers’ Compensation Act because he was the Plaintiff’s co-employee at the same company.

The court noted that, under the Workers’ Compensation Act, employees who received workers’ compensation benefit generally may not sue their employers or co-employees for work-related injuries. Relative to protections afforded to co-employees, a co-employee may secure immunity for negligent actions that caused a Plaintiff’s injuries while the co-employee and the Plaintiff were “in the same employ.”

In this case, the Plaintiff argued that he was suing the Defendant in his capacity as the owner of the skid loader, not as a co-employee and, therefore, the Defendant was not immune from suit.

The majority of the Superior Court ruled in this matter that there were genuine issues of material facts regarding the ownership and the use of the skid loader. The majority ruled that the Plaintiff’s claim with respect to the co-employee immunity issue hinged on whether or not the Plaintiff had been working in the course of his duties as an employee of the employer company at the time of the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article - “Workers’ Comp Immunity May Not Shield Construction Company Owner From Job Site Injury Suit, Appeals Court Rules” by Aleza Furman of Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 8, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Silvia Brazzoduro on www.unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Immunity of an Employer Where Plaintiff Claims Covered By Worker's Compensation

In the case of Franczyk v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 11 WAP 2022 (Pa. April 19, 2023) (Op. by Wecht, J.) (Todd, C.J, concurring), the court addressed immunity provided to employers in personal injury civil litigation matters given the employer’s exposure to worker’s compensation recoveries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirmed that the worker’s compensation system is a compromise that, in exchange for a no-fault insurance system, employers are granted immunity from tort liability for workplace injuries.

The court reiterated that, where worker’s compensation is available, such compensation is the exclusive remedy for an injured party against their employer.

The worker’s compensation statute precludes virtually any sort of negligence claim against the employer “on account” a physical injury that occurs in a workplace.

In this matter, the court found that a Plaintiff could not sue his employer for allegedly failing to investigate a dog bite that occurred at the place of employment and thereby obstructing the Plaintiff’s ability to bring a claim against the customer who owned the dog.

The court found that the plain language of the exclusivity clause under the Worker’s Compensation Act barred this action.  None of the exceptions were found to apply.

The court otherwise noted that employers have no general duty to protect and preserve the interests of their employees relative to a possible personal injury action.

Given that the Plaintiff in this matter was seeking a recovery of the same damages from the same injury that occurred in a workplace, the claim was found to be precluded from the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Chief Justice Todd can be viewed HERE.


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

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.

Trivial Defect Doctrine Found Not To Apply on Private Property

In the case of Ramsey v. Buchanan Auto Park, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01879-CCC (M.D. Pa. March 7, 2022 Connor, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part, post-trial motions in a slip and fall case after a verdict was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.

In one notable ruling, the court held that the trivial defect jury instructions that were developed in the context of public sidewalks was not applicable in the context of alleged defects on private property that allegedly injured business invitees.

The court noted that, in any event, this topic of liability was adequately covered by the jury instructions under which the jury was advised that, in order for the Plaintiff to recover, the property must have a condition which amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff.

This decision is also notable in that the Court found that photographs of the area where the Plaintiff fell that were taken in 2017 were admissible even though there were slight variations in the conditions of the area since the Plaintiff's 2014 fall down event.  The Court noted that the photos were authenticated by a witness and that any variations were pointed out to the jury by the witness and in the jury instructions.  

The court otherwise noted that damages for lost wages awarded by a jury is not necessarily excessive merely because the award exceeds the amount of the worker’s compensation lien. The court noted that the lien is not a cap on the Plaintiff’s claim for past wage loss.

However, the court did find that the award entered by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings was against the weight of the evidence where the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence in this regard.

The court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages after finding that the jury may have erroneously included non-economic damages in its future earnings award.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE


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

PA Superior Court Rules that a Worker's Compensation Carrier Does Not Have a Right To Force a Plaintiff To Take Action Against a Third Party Tortfeasor To Recover a Lien

In the case of Loftus v. Decker, No. 611 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2022 Olson, J., Murray, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed an appeal by a worker’s compensation carrier who had appealed the trial court’s denial of its Motion to Intervene in a personal injury case.

The record before the Court indicated that the injured party was a school bus driver who was injured during a motor vehicle accident.  During the course of the underlying matter, the injured party incurred a worker's compensation lien in excess of $196,000. 

According to the Opinion, the worker’s compensation carrier attempted to intervene after the Plaintiff-employee filed a Writ of Summons against an alleged tortfeasor.

The appellate court found that §319 of the Worker’s Compensation Act did not give a party any right, directly or indirectly, to take any action against a third-party tortfeasor. As such, the appellate court found that a worker’s compensation carrier could not force a Plaintiff employee to seek a recovery to satisfy a worker’s compensation statutory lien.

The Superior Court also noted that the Order from which the worker’s compensation carrier had appealed was not an appealable collateral Order.  Notably, the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that it was addressing the issue of whether the Order at issue was an appealable collateral Order within its decision on the merits.  As such, the Court in this decision addressed the merits of the issues presented in this case relative to the ability of the worker's compensation carrier to intervene in the action.

As noted, this appeal was quashed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion written by Judge Murray can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 29, 2022).

Photo by cottonbro on www.pexels.com.

Personal Injury Claim By Family Claiming Worker Died From COVID-19 Virus Contracted At Work Dismissed Under Worker's Compensation Act

In the case of Barker v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-223 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2021 Diamond, J.), the court ruled that a claim that an employer willfully or wantonly exposed its employees to the COVID-19 virus was insufficient to overcome the exclusivity provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act.  As such, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.

In this matter, the Plaintiff’s decedent passed away allegedly due to complications from the COVID-19 virus.

The Plaintiff alleged that the decedent’s employer caused the decedent’s wrongful death by failing to implement any safety measures after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff also asserted that the Defendant allegedly maintained a work-while-sick policy.

The federal court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss after finding, in part, that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act.

The court more specifically held that willful or wanton disregard for employee safety was insufficient to overcome the exclusivity provisions of the Act.

Instead, the court noted that an employee could fall outside of the Worker’s Compensation Act only upon a showing that an employer’s fraudulent misrepresentation caused an aggravation of a pre-existing injury. In this case, the court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations did not amount to any showing that any alleged wrongful conduct on the part of the employer caused any aggravation of any pre-existing conditions of the Plaintiff’s decedent.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 21, 2021).

Traveling Employee Doctrine Reviewed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the case of Peters v. W.C.A.B. (Cintas Corp.), No. 1 MAP 2020 (Pa. Nov. 17, 2021) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the “traveling employee” doctrine applicable to worker’s compensation cases.

Commentators have noted that this decision may apply to the personal injury litigation context when issues arise requiring a determination of whether an employer is a potential Defendant in a given matter.

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the contours of a traveling employee’s scope and course of employment.  The Court provided factors to consider whether such an employee could be considered to be within the scope and course of his employment at the time of an injury.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Bruce S. Zero of Powell Law in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo b. Andrea Piacquadio from pexels.com.

Worker's Compensation Carrier Allowed to Intervene in Third Party Action to Recover Lien

 

In the case of Gleason v. Alfred I. Dupont Hospital, No. 1872 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Aug. 5, 2021 McLaughlin, J., King, J., Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court permitted a worker’s compensation carrier to intervene in a third party personal injury litigation as part of the worker’s compensation carrier’s efforts to protect its subrogation rights on its lien by challenging the parties’ allocation of the settlement proceeds.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff-husband sustained burn injuries as a result of a work-related event.

During the course of the third party litigation, the injured Plaintiff entered into a sizeable settlement with one of the alleged tortfeasor Defendants. A petition was then filed by the Plaintiff with the court for court approval of that settlement, including the allocation of 60% of that settlement to the loss of consortium claim.

The worker’s compensation carrier filed a Petition to Intervene in order to protect its subrogation rights. The worker’s compensation carrier was asserting that the allocation of a substantial portion to the settlement funds to the loss of consortium claim was unfair and was designed to preclude the worker’s compensation carrier from fully recovering on its subrogation rights.

When that initial Petition to Intervene filed by the worker’s compensation carrier was denied, the worker’s compensation carrier eventually filed a second Petition to Intervene which was also denied. An appeal followed.

As noted above, on appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the worker’s compensation should have been allowed to intervene in a third party action to protect its interests.

The court found that the requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine had been met under the case presented such that the worker’s compensation carrier should be entitled to intervene.

The court noted that, where the worker’s compensation carrier had paid nearly a $1 million dollars on behalf of the injured party as a result of the workplace accident, justice required that it be allowed to intervene in a case where the settlement agreement against the third party tortfeasor was structured in a manner that limited the worker’s compensation lien to only about a third of the amount of the lien.

As such, the Superior Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the intervention sought by the worker’s compensation carrier as that intervention was necessary to fully protect the worker’s compensation carrier’s subrogation rights and rights to challenge the apportionment of the settlement proceeds in the third party matter relative to the loss of consortium claim.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Thomas B. Helbig of Helbig Mediation and Arbitration for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of Image (not of structure in question):  Photo by Markus Spiske on unsplash.com.

Borrowed Servant Doctrine Applied to Support Entry of Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer

In the case of Solomon v. FedEx Supply Chain, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02385 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2020 Rambo, J), Judge Sylvia H. Rambo addressed the current status of Pennsylvania law on the borrowed servant doctrine.

According to the Opinion, this personal injury case arose out of a forklift accident that occurred within the scope of the Plaintiff’s employment.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was a contractual employee for an employment agency and was assigned to work as a forklift operator and order picker at a FedEx Distribution Center.

Under the contract between the temporary employment agency and FedEx, FedEx was responsible for, among other things, training, supervising, and instructing staffing personnel, as well as for maintaining a safe workplace. The contract also provided that FedEx retained direction and control over the staffing personnel as it determined in its sole discretion to be appropriate, including the right to accept, reject, and remove staffing personnel.

Under the agreement, the employment agency was solely responsible for selecting, hiring, disciplining, reviewing, evaluating, and terminating personnel, as well as for paying the worker’s wages and maintaining the benefits.

The Plaintiff was injured on his first day of work at the FedEx Distribution Center after undergoing training in the morning and being assigned to shadow another FedEx employee. During that first day of work, the Plaintiff was operating a standup forklift when he collided with a parked forklift and allegedly sustained injuries as a result.

The Plaintiff sued FedEx following this incident.

FedEx eventually filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims for negligence on the basis that FedEx was Solomon’s statutory employer and was therefore immune from suit under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

The court noted that, generally speaking, employees who are injured at work are limited to compensation available to them under the Workers’ Compensation Act and cannot separately sue their employers for personal injury.

The court noted that this immunity provided by the Workers’ Compensation Act extends from the direct employer as well as to other entities that may have “borrowed” the employee and if the latter exercises sufficient control over the employee.

Under the borrowed servant doctrine, the “crucial test” in determining whether a worker furnished by one person to another becomes the employee of the person to whom he is loaned is whether the worker passes under the latter’s right of control with regards not only to the work to be done but also to the manner of performing it.

A borrowed employee in this regard is considered to a statutory employee and the borrowing employer is considered to a statutory employer.

The court noted that, if there are issues of fact on the issue of whether a defendant is a statutory employer, the question is usually one to be decided by a jury.   However, where the material facts are not in dispute the question can be properly the subject of a Motion for Summary Judgment.

After applying the law to the facts before her, Judge Rambo concluded that FedEx was the Plaintiff’s statutory employer pursuant to the borrowed servant doctrine. Accordingly, the court found that FedEx was entitled to immunity under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act to any personal injury suit. As such, FedEx’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Richard B. Wickersham, Jr., of the Philadelphia office of Post & Schell, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Issues of Fact Stall Decision on Whether Defendant Employer Protected by Worker's Compensation Immunity Provisions

In the case of Ravier v. Gearhart, No. 6676-CV-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 1, 2019 Williamson, J.), the court denied a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Additional Defendants in a personal injury action involving a workplace accident.

The Plaintiff filed suit against various Defendants who had joined certain Additional Defendants. The Additional Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting that they were immune from suit in this personal injury action under the Workers’ Compensation Act as the Plaintiff’s employer at the time of the accident.

The court denied the motion based upon their being issues of fact and uncertainty as to which entity was the Plaintiff’s employer at the time of her accident. The court noted that additional discovery was necessary before it could rule on the Additional Defendants’ claims of immunity.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 26, 2019).

Borrowed Servant Doctrine Addressed in Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Burrell v. Streamlight, Inc., No. 2016-CV-30144 (C.P. Montg. Co. May 9, 2019 Saltz, J.), the court addressed the borrowed servant doctrine and found that a Plaintiff was a worker who qualified as a borrowed servant such that the Defendant employer was immune from liability in a negligence cause of action because the worker had already received compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was affiliated with an employment recruiting agency.  That employment agency placed the Plaintiff as a temporary worker at the Defendant’s facility.   After working for a period at that facility, the Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell at work.  

The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant employer. The Defendant filed an Answer which contained a New Matter defense alleging that the claims by the Plaintiff were barred by the Worker’s Compensation Act.    The Defendant asserted that it was immune from negligence liability because the Plaintiff was either acting as its employee or was a borrowed servant.  

After discovery, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the issues presented.  

The court noted a general rule that, when a worker sustains an injury at the work place, compensation under the Worker’s Compensation Act was generally the exclusive remedy against the employer for a monetary recovery.  

Under the borrow servant doctrine, workers’ compensation immunity also applied to the true master when the servant had been loaned to another.   The test for determining whether a worker qualified as a borrowed servant was the right of control over the manner of the employee’s work.  

In this case, the court noted that, although the Plaintiff was initially hired by the temp agency, he worked under the control and supervision of the Defendant facility.   The Defendant facility trained the Plaintiff, set us schedule, and set the Plaintiff’s work duties.   In contrast, the temp agency only handled the payroll function, which the court considered to be peripheral.   The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the specific tasks he was performing at the time of his accident was not within his duties and, therefore, the borrowed servant doctrine should not be applied.    The court noted that there is evidence to the contrary, showing that the Plaintiff was either asked to perform the worker duty at issue or had volunteered to perform it.  

In light of all of the factors presented, the court found that the Plaintiff was indeed a borrowed servant and that the Defendant was therefore immune from liability under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 4, 2019).

Several Notable Civil Litigation Trial Issues Addressed By Pennsylvania Superior Court

The Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed several notable recurring civil litigation issues in the case of Nazarak v. Waite, 2019 Pa. Super. 235 (Pa. Super. Aug. 2, 2019 Lazarus, J., Murray, J., Stevens, P.J.E.)(Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.).

The case arose out of a rear end motor vehicle accident.  The Plaintiff was driving a commercial vehicle and was on the job at the time of the accident.  As such, he received worker's compensation benefits in the form of medical payments and indemnity payments.

The case proceeded through discovery and a trial at which a verdict was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.  On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Defendant's post-trial motions.

Among the notable rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court were the following:

-Issues regarding the admission of the worker's compensation lien into evidence.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's ruling to allow the Plaintiff to present to the jury the amount of the worker's compensation lien. 

 The Superior Court rejected the defense contention that the admission of the evidence pertaining to the lien violated the collateral source doctrine.  The Court noted that the reasoning behind the doctrine was not implicated in this case because it was the Plaintiff who was introducing the evidence of a prior recovery and not the Defendant.

The Nazarak Court also rejected the defense argument that the admission of the lien amount into evidence and the allowance of a recovery in that regard amounted to a double recovery for the Plaintiff.  The Court confirmed that the Plaintiff was required to pay back the lien amount to the worker's compensation carrier and that, as such, there was no double recovery by the Plaintiff.

The Superior Court also rejected the defense contention that, by allowing into evidence the fact that the Plaintiff had been paid such medical and wage loss benefits, the trial court usurped the function of the jury to decide the issue of causation because such evidence suggested that the Plaintiff's injuries were from the accident.  This contention by the defense was rejected by the Superior Court in this Narzarak decision.

-The Court also rejected the defense argument that it was error for the trial court to have allowed the introduction of the compromise and release document from the worker's compensation case into evidence at trial.  The defense had asserted that this was impermissible evidence of a settlement agreement in violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6141.  The Superior Court noted that the Defendants in this case were not parties to that separate worker's compensation settlement agreement and, as such, Section 6141 was not directly implicated.  However, the Superior Court went onto note that while the admission of this evidence may have violated the letter of the law in Section 6141, such an error was not a reversible error where the evidence was only used by the Plaintiff to establish the amount of the lien and not with respect to proving any liability issues (liability was admitted by the defense at trial).


-Issues regarding the presentation of expert testimony.

The Court in Nazarak rejected the defense contention that the Plaintiff's vocational expert was allowed to testify beyond the fair scope of her report.  After reviewing the expert's testimony as compared to the expert's report, the Court rejected this argument.

The Court also rejected the argument by the defense that the Plaintiff had violated the hearsay rule by utilizing the Plaintiff's testifying orthopedic expert report to comment upon the report and opinions of a neuro-radiologist expert who was not called to testify.  The defense contended that this strategy violated the rule of law that prohibited one expert from acting as a mere conduit for the opinion of another expert.  The Nazarak court reviewed the testimony of the testifying orthopedic expert and found that that expert had not merely acted as a conduit for the other expert's opinion, but rather had permissibly referred to and relied upon that other expert's opinions to formulate the orthopedic expert's own opinions on the case presented.


Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.

PA Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule that Workers' Compensation Carrier May Not Directly Enforce Its Subrogation Rights Against Tortfeasor

In the case of Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Kamara, No. 24 EAP 2017 (Nov. 21, 2018) (Op. by Baer, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a workers’ compensation carrier could bring a third-party action against an alleged tortfeasor on behalf of an injured employee in order to recover the amount of money paid out in workers’ compensation benefits where that injured employee did not independently sue the tortfeasor, did not join in the carrier’s action, and did not assign her cause of action to the carrier.  

This matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was struck as a pedestrian while the Plaintiff was in the scope and course of her employment.   The Plaintiff had recovered workers’ compensation benefits through the Hartford Insurance Group.

When the Plaintiff herself did not seek to recover damages against the third party tortfeasors, the workers’ compensation carrier sought to recover on its subrogation rights under the workers’ compensation act by filing a suit against the tortfeasors.  

After this case worked its way up to the appellate ladder, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed the “well-settled proposition that the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee.”   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, unless the injured employee assigns her cause of action or voluntarily joins the litigation as a party Plaintiff, the workers’ compensation carrier may not enforce its statutory right to subrogation by filing an action directly against the tortfeasor.  

As such, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and reinstated the decision of the trial court which had sustained the Preliminary Objections filed by the tortfeasor which serve to dismiss the carrier’s Complaint with prejudice.  

Anyone wishing to review the Majority Opinion by Justice Baer may click HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Saylor can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Todd can be viewed at this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.