E. Lopez v. WCAB (Martinez)
E. Lopez v. WCAB (Martinez) - 1337 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Claimant (Edvin Lopez), a carpenter, alleged he injured his lower back while lifting a beam at a residential project in Warrington Township on June 6, 2012, and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Claim petitions named Alvan Construction (via owner Alvaro Martinez), Michael J. Wright Construction, Toll Brothers, Edvin Construction, Hartford Insurance, and the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund; petitions were consolidated and bifurcated to decide employment status first.
- Claimant testified he worked for Martinez/Alvan, was driven to the site in an Alvan van, received checks (photocopied) and bought a Hartford workers’ compensation policy at Martinez’s direction that was effective May 5, 2012–May 5, 2013.
- Martinez and Wright witnesses testified Alvan stopped doing work for Wright in April 2012, Martinez was not at the Warrington site on June 6, and Wright did not hire or pay Claimant; Wright’s records showed no Alvan activity or payroll entries for Claimant or Martinez on June 6.
- Toll Brothers’ VP testified Toll Brothers subcontracted framing work and did not control subcontractors onsite; no Toll Brothers report of a June 6 injury was recorded.
- The WCJ credited Martinez, Wright (Bryan), and Toll Brothers testimony over Claimant’s, found Claimant did not prove he was working for or under the control of the named employers on June 6, 2012, and denied benefits; the Board affirmed and the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCJ issued a reasoned decision and properly credited/discredited testimony | Lopez: WCJ failed to explain rejection of his testimony and documentary evidence (checks); findings internally inconsistent and record support different conclusion | Respondents: WCJ explained credibility choices, cited consistent testimony and records showing Alvan ceased work April 2012 and no evidence Claimant worked June 6 | Held: WCJ rendered a reasoned decision; credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence and explained adequately |
| Whether WCJ applied correct legal standard to determine employment status (Construction Workplace Misclassification Act/common-law employee test) | Lopez: WCJ should have applied the Misclassification Act or common-law factors to find he was an Alvan employee or statutory employee of Wright/Toll Brothers | Respondents: WCJ found Claimant was not working for Alvan on the date, so application of those tests was unnecessary | Held: No error — because WCJ found no employment relationship on date of injury, tests for employee vs. independent contractor or statutory-employer status were not required |
| Whether Wright Construction or Toll Brothers are statutory employers liable for Claimant’s injury | Lopez: Even if hired through Martinez, Wright/Toll exercised control or were responsible for subcontractors, making them statutory employers | Wright/Toll: They subcontracted framing, did not control subcontractors or individual workers and had no involvement with Claimant | Held: Statutory-employer claim fails because Claimant did not prove he was working for or under control of Wright or Toll on June 6, 2012 |
| Whether WCJ exceeded bifurcation scope by finding Claimant was not injured while working, denying opportunity to present medical case | Lopez: WCJ’s conclusion that Claimant was not injured "while working" ended the case before medical evidence was heard | Respondents: WCJ limited its finding to employment status (i.e., not working for named employers) and did not rule there was no physical injury | Held: No error — WCJ’s conclusion addressed employment nexus only and did not preclude Claimant’s ability to present medical evidence if employment had been established |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Am-Cam Ltd. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 762 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2000) (factors for distinguishing employee from independent contractor)
- Greenwich Collieries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Buck), 664 A.2d 703 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (WCJ’s credibility and evidentiary-weight province)
- Hoffmaster v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Senco Products, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (substantial evidence standard for upholding WCJ findings)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (reasoned decision requirement under Section 422(a))
- Staron v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Farrier), 121 A.3d 564 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (claimant’s burden to prove injury arose in course of employment)