Doman v. Atlas America, Inc.
150 A.3d 103
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Atlas (lessee) contracted Yost to drill the Springer Well; Yost's employee Rock Doman was killed during pipe removal after the well was "shut in."
- Doman’s estate sued Atlas asserting negligence, vicarious liability, and strict liability theories; some counts were dismissed pretrial and others survived until summary judgment.
- Atlas moved for summary judgment claiming it was a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act and therefore immune from tort suits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Atlas; the estate appealed, arguing the court misapplied the law (invoking McDonald and Section 203) and that Atlas should be treated as an owner, not a statutory employer.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Section 302(a)’s specialized definition (drilling/minerals) applies and confers statutory-employer status and tort immunity on Atlas as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atlas is a statutory employer and immune from tort liability | McDonald/Section 203 should control; Atlas is effectively an owner and not entitled to immunity | Section 302(a) applies because work involved drilling/removal of minerals; Atlas is primary contractor/statutory employer | Atlas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a); tort immunity applies |
| Whether McDonald owner-exclusion or test applies to §302(a) claims | McDonald’s factors (owner exclusion) must be applied to defeat immunity | McDonald does not apply to §302(a); §302(a) has its own specialized definition | McDonald/test does not apply to §302(a); Supreme Court precedent forecloses importing McDonald into §302(a) analysis |
| Whether §302(a) requires site control/occupancy (like §302(b) and §203) | §203/§302(b) site-control factors should be required here | §302(a) does not require site control; it uses a distinct definition including drilling/excavation of minerals | §302(a) does not require occupancy/control; statutory-employer status can attach absent site control |
| Whether prior payment of workers’ compensation by the direct employer defeats a §302(a) statutory employer’s immunity | Because Yost already paid benefits, Atlas should not get immunity or be secondarily liable | Statutory-employer immunity attaches by statute regardless of who actually paid benefits | Immunity applies even if the direct employer paid benefits; §302(a)/§203 grant immunity independent of who paid benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930) (articulated five-factor test for statutory-employer status under Section 203)
- Six L’s Packing Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 44 A.3d 1148 (Pa. 2012) (held McDonald and owner-exclusion do not apply to §302(a); §302(a) has its own scope)
- Delich v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 661 A.2d 936 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (analyzed differences between §302(a) and §302(b) and declined to graft site-control onto §302(a))
- Patton v. 89 A.3d 645 (Pa.) (discussed that statutory-employer immunity applies even if direct employer paid benefits; urged legislative reconsideration)
- Fonner v. Shandon, Inc., 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) (held 1974 amendments did not eliminate statutory-employer immunity when direct employer paid benefits)
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (summary judgment standard cited)
- Peck v. Delaware County Bd. of Prison Inspectors, 814 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2002) (explained that §203 confers immunity because §303 makes compensation exclusive remedy)