Gleason, J. v. Alfred I. Dupont Hospital
2021 Pa. Super. 156
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Mr. John Gleason, an MRI technician, suffered severe burns in a 2015 workplace explosion while working at DuPont Hospital.
- The Hartford (workers’ compensation carrier for Mr. Gleason’s employer) paid about $988,474 in benefits and medical-set-aside funds.
- The Gleasons settled their third‑party claims for $1.45 million (allocated $580,000 to Mr. Gleason and $870,000 to Mrs. Gleason for loss of consortium).
- The Hartford sought to intervene under Section 319 of the Workers’ Compensation Act to protect its subrogation lien and to challenge the 60/40 allocation favoring the consortium recovery.
- The trial court denied Hartford’s petitions to intervene; Hartford appealed.
- The Superior Court held the denial was appealable as a collateral order, found the trial court abused its discretion, reversed, and remanded with instructions to permit intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's denial of intervention is appealable | Hartford: denial is separable, too important to delay, and would irreparably impair its statutory lien rights | Trial court/Gleasons: appeal is premature while cross‑claims/trial issues remain outstanding | Court: appealable under collateral order doctrine; requirements (separability, importance, irreparability) met |
| Whether Hartford is entitled to intervene to protect its Section 319 subrogation lien | Hartford: paid substantial benefits and needs party status to challenge the settlement allocation (esp. consortium apportionment) to protect lien | Gleasons: settlement approved and carrier had other avenues; intervention not necessary | Court: trial court abused its discretion by denying intervention; remand to permit Hartford to intervene |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. W.C.A.B., 781 A.2d 1146 (Pa. 2001) (recognizing employer/carrier’s absolute subrogation right under Section 319 and limits on interests in spouse’s consortium recovery)
- Van Den Heuval v. Wallace, 555 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 1989) (carrier entitled to intervene in employee’s third‑party action to protect subrogation interest)
- Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Excelsior Ins.), 58 A.3d 18 (Pa. 2012) (describing Section 319 distribution principles for settlements)
- Shearer v. Hafer, 177 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2018) (explaining collateral order doctrine standards and narrow construction to avoid piecemeal appeals)
- In re Barnes Keesee v. Dougherty, 230 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2020) (discussing appealability of orders denying intervention under Rule 313)