Department of Labor & Industry v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Lin & Eastern Taste)
155 A.3d 103
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant (Lin) was injured on March 28, 2011 while doing remodeling at Eastern Taste, a restaurant that had not yet opened.
- Claimant filed workers' compensation claims against Eastern Taste and the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (Fund).
- WCJ found: Eastern Taste is a restaurant (not a construction business); Claimant was hired to do remodeling, was the most experienced worker, was paid per diem, used his own tools/van while owner’s husband (Wang) provided some tools/materials and "was in charge of what needed to be done." WCJ concluded Claimant was not an employee, work was not in the regular course of Eastern Taste's business, and employment was casual.
- The Board reversed on January 6, 2015, concluding Claimant was an employee and not a casual worker; remanded for benefits. On remand WCJ awarded benefits; Board made its earlier order final and affirmed.
- Fund appealed to Commonwealth Court arguing the Board improperly reweighed evidence and engaged in impermissible fact‑finding beyond WCJ's findings.
- Commonwealth Court (Hearthway, J.) reversed: held Board exceeded authority by making new factual findings; on the WCJ’s findings (viewed favorably to prevailing party) Claimant was not an employee and CWMA did not apply because Eastern Taste is not in the construction industry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Claimant an employee of Eastern Taste for WC benefits? | Claimant: his remodeling work was employment — he was hired to perform remodeling and was "under supervision" of Wang; not an independent contractor. | Fund/Eastern Taste: WCJ found Claimant an independent contractor; Board unlawfully reweighed evidence to find employment. | Held: Claimant was not an employee under WC Act based on WCJ findings (no right to control means; specialized contractor role). |
| Did Board impermissibly engage in fact-finding? | Claimant: Board relied on record to correct WCJ's conclusions. | Fund: Board exceeded authority by making new factual findings/inferences beyond WCJ. | Held: Board exceeded authority by drawing findings beyond WCJ; impermissible fact-finding. |
| Does the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (CWMA) apply? | Claimant: CWMA applies because he performed construction/remodeling for remuneration and Eastern Taste was undertaking construction. | Fund/Eastern Taste: CWMA inapplicable because Eastern Taste is a restaurant, not a construction industry business. | Held: CWMA does not apply; statute targets services "in the construction industry" and should be read in context of the putative employer's business. |
| If CWMA applies, would Claimant be an employee? | Claimant: If CWMA applied, Claimant would be an employee (no written contract, etc.). | Fund: N/A (primary dispute was applicability). | Held: Court did not reach merits under CWMA because CWMA inapplicable; noted WCJ thought CWMA would have produced a different result if applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Minteer), 762 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2000) (enumerates factors for employee v. independent contractor; control is primary factor)
- Edwards v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Epicure Home Care, Inc.), 134 A.3d 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (standard: WCJ findings reviewed for substantial evidence; view evidence favorably to prevailing party)
- Hammermill Paper Co. v. Rust Engineering Co., 243 A.2d 389 (Pa. 1968) (factors for distinguishing employee from contractor cited by Universal Am-Can)
- Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841 (Pa. Super. 2012) (reservation of result control indicates independent contractor relationship)