189 A.3d 441
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eric Gardner was employed by DelVal Staffing and assigned to work at MIA as a freezer/packer; he slipped on ice while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from DelVal.
- Gardner sued MIA in negligence after receiving WC benefits, alleging MIA’s negligence caused his injury.
- MIA moved for summary judgment arguing Gardner was a "borrowed employee" of MIA and therefore barred from tort suit by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for MIA, concluding MIA had the right to control Gardner’s work and thus was his employer for WC purposes.
- On appeal the Superior Court reviewed de novo, viewing facts in the light most favorable to Gardner as the non-moving party.
- The Superior Court found genuine issues of material fact about who had the right to control Gardner (DelVal v. MIA) and reversed, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gardner was a "borrowed employee" of MIA | Gardner: DelVal remained his employer; DelVal supervised, assigned work, provided safety instructions and transportation | MIA: Had the right to control manner and details of Gardner’s work (supervisors, instructions, demonstrations) | Reversed trial court: disputed facts about control precluded summary judgment; remanded for trial |
| Whether statutory-employee analysis limits remedies | Gardner: Because MIA was not his statutory employer, he may sue in tort | MIA: Did not argue statutory-employer status; relied on borrowed-employee doctrine | Court: Distinguished statutory vs. borrowed employee; MIA’s argument was borrowed-employee only; court focused on control inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamler v. Waldron, 284 A.2d 725 (Pa. 1971) (borrowed-servant test: right to control work and manner of performance defines employer)
- Mature v. Angelo, 97 A.2d 59 (Pa. 1953) (control, selection/discharge and skill factors relevant to employer determination)
- JFC Temps, Inc. v. WCAB (Lindsay), 680 A.2d 862 (Pa. 1996) (discussion of borrowed-employee doctrine and relevant standards)
- Shamis v. Moon, 91 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing statutory and borrowed employee doctrines under WCA)
- Venezia v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 177 A. 25 (Pa. 1935) (payment of wages is not determinative of employer status)
- English v. Lehigh County Authority, 428 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Super. 1981) (addresses competing employer claims and practical effect on WC analysis)