Dobransky, E. v. EQT Production, 273 A.3d 1133

Background

On June 19, 2012, Eric Dobransky — a truck driver employed by Northwest Logistics — was injured when barite discharged from a tank while unloading at the Scott’s Run Marcellus well site leased/operated by EQT.
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (HESI) provided mud services at the site under a master services agreement (MSA) with EQT; HESI contracted with Northwest to transport and unload barite at the site.
Dobransky sued EQT and HESI in negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting statutory‑employer immunity under Section 302(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (77 P.S. § 461).
The trial court granted summary judgment relying on this Court’s Doman decision and held HESI (and, via vertical privity, EQT) were statutory employers under Section 302(a)(1)(i).
The Superior Court (en banc) vacated and remanded, holding defendants failed to show entitlement to summary judgment under Section 302(a)(1)(i) and, after addressing Section 302(a)(2) in the first instance, also rejecting summary judgment under that provision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether HESI/EQT are statutory employers under Section 302(a)(1)(i) (work "consisting of the removal, excavation or drilling of soil, rock or minerals").	Dobransky: delivery/unloading of barite is transportation, not work constituting removal/excavation/drilling.	HESI/EQT: they subcontracted drilling‑related services (mud services) and Doman controls; Northwest’s delivery/unloading falls within §302(a)(1)(i).	Court: No — HESI did not contract with Northwest to perform removal/excavation/drilling; Northwest performed transport/unloading, so §302(a)(1)(i) does not apply as a matter of law.
2) Whether HESI/EQT are statutory employers under Section 302(a)(2) (work that is a regular or recurrent part of the contractor’s business).	Dobransky: occasional receipt of materials does not make transportation a regular part of HESI’s business; extending §302(a)(2) that far would swallow ordinary commercial relationships.	HESI/EQT: transporting/unloading barite was regular/recurrent to HESI’s mud services business and was contractually delegated to Northwest.	Court: No — defendants failed to prove as a matter of law that transportation/unloading was a regular or recurrent part of HESI’s business or that HESI contractually delegated a transportation business to Northwest; summary judgment denied.
3) Whether trial court properly relied on Doman to grant summary judgment.	Dobransky: Doman is distinguishable because that case involved a subcontractor engaged directly in drilling activities.	Defendants: Doman is controlling precedent supporting statutory‑employer immunity.	Court: Trial court erred to the extent it applied Doman to transportation/unloading here; Doman did not mandate summary judgment.
4) Whether appellate court may decide §302(a)(2) despite trial court not addressing it.	(Implicit) Dobransky: appellate review should resolve statutory‑employer question presented on record.	Defendants: asked en banc review to affirm on §302(a)(2) as alternative ground.	Court: Exercised discretion to consider §302(a)(2) and rejected defendants’ entitlement to summary judgment on that basis as well.

Key Cases Cited

Doman v. Atlas America, Inc., 150 A.3d 103 (Pa. Super. 2016) (statutory‑employer analysis applied where subcontractor performed drilling work)
Six L’s Packing Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Williamson), 44 A.3d 1148 (Pa. 2012) (statutory‑employer doctrine and scope of §302(a))
Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 89 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2014) (discussing immunity attached to statutory‑employer status)
Fonner v. Shandon, Inc., 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) (historical discussion of statutory‑employer immunity after 1974 amendments)
Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary‑judgment standard and de novo review of legal questions)
Emery v. Leavesly McCollum, 725 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 1999) (vertical privity and extension of statutory‑employer status)