222 A.3d 1137
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On January 29, 2015 Bruce Burrell, a temporary worker supplied by Aerotek, was injured at Streamlight while disposing of trash during his shift; he received workers’ compensation benefits for the injury.
- Burrell sued Streamlight in negligence (filed December 27, 2016); Streamlight pleaded immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), asserting Burrell was its employee under the borrowed-employee doctrine.
- Aerotek’s personnel agreement with Streamlight stated Aerotek paid wages and provided WC insurance, but required that personnel perform work "under the technical management and supervision of Streamlight." Streamlight could also terminate assigned individuals.
- Burrell’s deposition confirmed Streamlight set his hours, job duties, supervised and trained him on site, and Aerotek had no on-site supervisors or significant interaction with him while he worked at Streamlight.
- The trial court granted Streamlight summary judgment on WCA immunity, concluding no genuine dispute of material fact that Streamlight had the right to control Burrell’s work; the court also denied Burrell’s request for more discovery as he had ample time prior to the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of fact existed about which entity was Burrell’s employer | Burrell: factual disputes (contract language and employment labels) preclude summary judgment | Streamlight: contract + Burrell’s testimony show Streamlight had the right to control his work and thus is employer under borrowed-employee doctrine | Affirmed: Streamlight was Burrell’s employer as a matter of law; WCA immunity applies |
| Whether the court erred by ruling without allowing additional discovery | Burrell: trial court should have granted more time to complete discovery on control/employer issue | Streamlight: discovery period was long (over 1½ years); motion filed after discovery closed | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; plaintiff had reasonable time and gave no basis why more discovery was needed |
Key Cases Cited
- JFC Temps, Inc. v. WCAB (Lindsay), 680 A.2d 862 (Pa. 1996) (articulates borrowed-employee test: right to control work and manner of performance determines employer status)
- English v. Lehigh County Authority, 428 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Super. 1981) (agency-hired workers treated as employer of the entity that directed and supervised their work)
- Mullins v. Sun Co., 763 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2000) (summary judgment appropriate when supervision/control facts are undisputed)
- Gardner v. MIA Products Co., 189 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) (reversed summary judgment where evidence of supervision by both entities created factual disputes)
- Fort Cherry School District v. Gedman, 894 A.2d 135 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court not required to delay ruling on summary judgment absent showing additional discovery was necessary)