Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the trial and intermediate courts determined that a general contractor was not a statutory employer relative to an employee of its subcontractor. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the tension between such rulings and the Supreme Court’s longstanding jurisprudence that conventional subcontract scenarios serve as paradigm instances in which the statutory-employment concept applies. Appellant Worthington Associates, Inc., was hired as the general contractor for an addition to a Levittown church. Worthington, in turn, entered into a standard-form subcontract with Patton Construction, Inc., of which Appellee Earl Patton was the sole shareholder and an employee, to perform carpentry. While working at the construction site, Mr. Patton fell and sustained injuries to his back. Subsequently, the Pattons commenced a civil action against Worthington contending that the company failed to maintain safe conditions at the jobsite. Worthington moved for summary judgment on the basis that it was Mr. Patton’s statutory employer and, accordingly, was immune from suit. After the motion was denied, trial proceeded during which Worthington reasserted its claim to immunity in unsuccessful motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. "Having set up an errant dichotomy for the jurors, the [trial] court proceeded to instruct them concerning the differences between independent contractors and employees at common law. In doing so, the trial court compounded the underlying conceptual difficulties it had engendered, because [the Supreme] Court has long held that, for the salient purposes under Sections 203 and 302(b) of the WCA, the term 'independent contractor' carries a narrower meaning than it does at common law." The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Pattons in the amount of $1.5 million in the aggregate. Post-trial motions were denied, and Worthington appealed. A Superior Court panel affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Mr. Patton’s relationship with the owner here was undeniably a derivative one, arising per a conventional subcontract with a general contractor (Worthington). "[U]nder longstanding precedent, neither Patton Construction, Inc., nor Mr. Patton was an 'independent contractor' relative to Worthington." View "Patton v. Worthington Associates" on Justia Law

This case involved an uninsured motorist benefits claim filed in connection with injuries allegedly sustained by the appellant in a 2001 motor vehicle accident. Appellant was driving a truck insured by Harleysville Insurance Company when he rear-ended another vehicle. The police report contained no mention of a phantom vehicle being involved in the accident. Appellant later reported the accident to his employer, explaining he momentarily took his eyes off the road, and when he looked again, a vehicle was stopped in front of him; he was unable to stop and rear-ended the vehicle. Twenty days later, appellant completed a written Workers’ Compensation Employee’s Statement in which he reported the accident occurred due to the other vehicle stopping suddenly in front of him. But again, no phantom vehicle was reported. Over eight months later, appellant filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, alleging the accident was caused by a phantom vehicle pulling out in front of the other vehicle, causing appellant to stop suddenly. Harleysville denied appellant’s claim and sought a declaratory judgment that he was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. The Superior Court reversed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, which held appellee Harleysville Insurance Company did not suffer prejudice as a result of appellant’s failure to report the phantom vehicle within a 30-day time requirement established by the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court decision. View "Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the statutory interpretation concerning Section 413(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act, specifically whether the claimant/appellant should have been permitted to proceed on a post-500-week petition for reinstatement of total disability benefits where he filed that petition within three years of his most recent payment of compensation, a payment which was made pursuant to a post-500-week supplemental agreement, notwithstanding a prior suspension of payments due to his return to work without a loss in earning capacity. Resolving the question, involved first determining whether expiration of the 500-week period set forth within the Act operated as a bar to the assertion of total disability claims by employees who have experienced a suspension of benefits. Also affecting the Court's decision was the effect of payments made pursuant to supplemental agreements upon an otherwise expired workers' compensation claim. The Commonwealth Court below affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's ("WCAB") reversal of a Workers' Compensation Judge's ("WCJ") decision granting appellant's reinstatement and penalty petitions. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that appellant's reinstatement petition was not timely filed. Accordingly, it affirmed the Commonwealth Court. View "Cozzone, Aplt v. WCAB (Pa Municipal/E. Goshen Twp)" on Justia Law

Petitioners Senior Judges John Driscoll and Sandra Moss, and Judges Joseph O'Keefe and Arthur Tilson sought to nullify the mandatory retirement provision applicable to judicial officers as enumerated in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The judges argued that they were elected and then retained to ten-year judicial terms, and that enforcement of the constitutional provision would require them to retire against their will prior to the expiration of those terms. While the Supreme Court recognized "colorable merit" to petitioners' argument that a constitutional amendment may impinge on rights otherwise recognized in the Constitution itself, the Court nevertheless found petitioners did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and remanded their case back to the Commonwealth Court to be dismissed. View "Driscoll v. Corbett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allocatur to determine whether the Superior Court erred by declining to validate a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement, solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in an initial offer letter which conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement. Upon concluding the Superior Court did not properly characterize the offer letter, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pulse Technologies v. Notaro" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Commonwealth Court correctly interpreted 24 Pa.C.S. 8507(e) to require that the Public School Employees' Retirement System nomination of benefits form be completed in its entirely in the member/decedent's own hand in order to effectuate a valid change of beneficiary. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court erred, and held that the Board correctly determined that under the facts of this case, section 8507(e) allowed for distribution of retirement benefits at issue to the appellant. View "Snizaski v. Public School Employees' Retirement Board" on Justia Law

Appellant Sabrina Bowman appealed a Superior Court’s order affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which granted Sunoco, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed appellant's negligence claim. Appellant was employed as a private security guard with Allied Barton Security Services. In exchange for employment, she signed a Workers' Compensation Disclaimer whereby she waived her right to sue Allied's clients for damages related to injuries covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. Appellant was later injured when she fell on ice and snow while working at one of Sunoco's refineries. She filed a workers' compensation claim and received benefits. Thereafter, appellant filed a negligence claim against Sunoco, alleging failure to maintain safe conditions caused her injury. After discovery revealed the disclaimer and appellant's receipt of benefits, appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, stating appellant's claim was barred by the disclaimer. Finding no error in the Superior Court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant Dorothy Robinson was a police officer for the City of Pittsburgh. In 1997, she sustained a work-related injury, and the City placed her on light-duty. In 2001, while traveling for treatment of her injury, Claimant was involved in an automobile accident in which she sustained new injuries. After the accident, Claimant did not return to her light-duty position nor was she offered any other light-duty work. In late 2004, Claimant received a disability pension. In connection with Claimant’s claim of entitlement to a disability pension, she was examined by three physicians who certified that Claimant was unable to perform her pre-injury job as a police officer. Nearly three years later, an independent medical examiner concluded that although Claimant was not fit to perform her prior job as a police officer, she could perform modified-duty work. The City filed a Petition to Suspend Compensation Benefits, asserting that Claimant was capable of working, "but has voluntarily removed herself from the work force as she has not looked for or sought employment in the general labor market." Claimant filed a response, denying the averments of the suspension petition and asserting that she remained attached to the workforce and had registered for work with the Pennsylvania Job Center. She further claimed that she was not presently working only because of the unavailability of work and because the City had eliminated her light-duty position. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the suspension petition, concluding that Claimant had not voluntarily removed herself from the workforce. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal concerned the assignment of the burden of proof when the employer sought to modify or suspend a claimant's benefits on the basis that the claimant had retired. The Commonwealth Court plurality devised a "totality of the circumstances" test and concluded that the City failed to show that the injured worker had voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce. The City appealed, but the Supreme Court concurred with the Commonwealth Court and affirmed. View "City of Pittsburgh v. WCAB (Robinson)" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a doctor who treats prison inmates has a common law duty to warn corrections officers that a particular inmate has a communicable disease. Appellee Michelle Seebold filed suit against Appellant Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS"), alleging a single cause of action expressly grounded in negligence. Appellee worked as a corrections officer at the prison and was assigned to strip search its female inmates before and after they received visitors. The complaint asserted that approximately twelve inmates were infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As a result of Appellee's contact with the inmates, she averred, she became infected. Appellee contended that PHS's staff knew or should have known of the infections and owed a duty of reasonable care to "the staff and inmates at SCI Muncy to warn them of and protect them from acquiring an MRSA infection from those inmates known to be carrying the bacteria in a communicable state." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellee had not asserted a cause of action under Commonwealth case law, and "[i]n the absence of policy arguments or a request for an opportunity to develop a record, the [trial] court did not err in applying the default approach of declining to impose upon professional undertakings new affirmative common-law duties running to third-parties to the professional relationship." The Court reversed the superior court and reinstated the trial court's order. View "Seebold v. Prison Health Services" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the "voluntary layoff option" proviso ("VLO Proviso") contained in Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law ("UC Law"), permits employees to receive unemployment compensation benefits when they accept an early retirement plan offered pursuant to an employer-initiated workforce reduction. Upon application of our rules of statutory construction, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and concluded that the UC Law does not preclude application of the VLO Proviso to early retirement plans offered pursuant to employer-initiated workforce reductions. View "Diehl v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Review" on Justia Law