We Provide Representation in Pennsylvania
We Provide Representation in New York
We Provide Representation in New Jersey
We Provide Representation in Florida
We Provide Representation in West Virginia
We Provide Representation in Delaware
We Provide Representation in Maryland

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Maintains Traditional ‘Statutory Employer’ Defense

(Philadelphia, PA – April 10, 2014)  A unanimous decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court makes clear that the traditional ‘statutory employer’ doctrine remains alive and well in Pennsylvania, while clarifying the analysis and limiting its use.

According to the Court, the statutory employer analysis should remain a simple one: employees of subcontractors (an employer with a direct contractual relationship with the general contractor) are limited to bringing workers’ compensation claims against  general contractors, while employees of independent contractors (an employer with a direct relationship with the property owner) may bring civil liability suits against general contractors (assuming the other necessary factors for liability, such as control of the worksite, are present).

The case, Patton v. Worthington Associates Inc., was brought on Appeal by Worthington Associates, Inc., a general contractor hired to construct an addition to a local church.Worthington had entered into a standard-form subcontract with Patton Construction, Inc., whose sole shareholder and employee, Earl Patton, was a carpenter. Mr. Patton fell and injured his back during construction and brought a civil suit againstWorthington, alleging failure to maintain a safe worksite.

Worthingtonmoved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from civil suit as a ‘statutory employer.’ Mr. Patton argued that, as the employee of an independent contractor, he was entitled to bring his civil suit.

Under the Pennsylvania’s Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), general contractors are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation to the employees of any subcontractors which they hire. A statutory employee’s exclusive remedy against his statutory employer arises under the WCA, and an injured employee may not bring a traditional civil tort action against his statutory employer. To put it plainly, general contractors inPennsylvania enjoy immunity from civil claims made by injured employees of their subcontractors.

In Patton, however, the Trial Court held that whether Mr. Patton was “an independent contractor or an employee with respect toWorthington” was a fact issue for the jury to decide.  The jury thereafter returned a $1.5 million dollar verdict againstWorthington, which was upheld on appeal by the Superior Court and effectively nullified the traditional statutory employer doctrine.

On appeal, the Supreme Court overruled, and pointed out the trial court’s jury instruction created confusion, because Mr. Patton, as an employee of Patton Construction Inc., could be neither the independent contractor nor the direct employee ofWorthington. In contrast, the Supreme Court, stated definitively that the statutory employer defense continues to exist, but applies only to employees of subcontractors, not employees of independent contractors (who have direct contracts with property owners).

Written by:       Benjamin Frommer

Edited by:         SNC

Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. publishes this site to provide general information regarding certain fields of law to our clients and friends. As every situation is unique and the facts and advice would vary with individual circumstances, the information contained on this site does not constitute legal advice. Transmittal of information from this site or any use of electronic mail is not intended to create or establish an attorney-client relationship between Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. and anyone else. Do not send any information until you speak with one of our attorneys and receive authorization to do so. If any communication from this site is not in conformity with the rules and regulations of any state governing lawyer conduct, Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. will not accept representation which is based on such communication.
Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. has offices in Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh PA, Wheeling, WV, New York and Long Island NY, Cherry Hill NJ, Miami and Tampa, FL. None of the attorneys listed in this Web site are certified as an "expert" or "specialist" pursuant to any authority governing the practice of law in the State of New York.