91 A.3d 305
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Claimant (Greenawalt), a union laborer from Latrobe, PA, was hired by Bristol Environmental in PA in Sept. 2009 for a Rochester, NY project; he lived in a NY apartment during the week and returned to PA on weekends.
- On Dec. 14, 2009, Claimant slipped on ice at the NY lodging, injured his back, reported the incident to his foreman, and thereafter performed light duty until a January 2010 layoff.
- Claimant filed a WC claim and penalty petition in PA; Bristol denied jurisdiction and argued the injury occurred in NY while employment was principally localized there.
- The WCJ found Claimant was hired in PA for employment principally localized in NY, declined to find a continuous employment relationship with Bristol based on intervening work for other employers, and dismissed the petitions for lack of PA jurisdiction under Section 305.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The Board affirmed the WCJ; Claimant appealed to this Court arguing (1) employment was principally localized in PA under §305.2(a)(1); (2) alternatively, the contract was made in PA and employment not localized in any state under §305.2(a)(2); (3) or remand to decide applicability of NY law under §305.2(a)(3).
- The Court reviewed whether the WCJ’s jurisdictional findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the law was correctly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA has extraterritorial jurisdiction under §305.2(a)(1) (employment principally localized in PA) | Greenawalt: hired in PA, trained in PA, prior work history with Bristol in PA — employment principally localized in PA | Bristol: hired for a NY job, worked exclusively at Rochester site for months — employment principally localized in NY | Held: WCJ credibility findings supported; employment principally localized in NY, so §305.2(a)(1) not satisfied |
| Whether prior intermittent jobs with Bristol create a continuous employment relationship for localization analysis | Greenawalt: many past jobs for Bristol should be aggregated to show localization in PA | Bristol: Claimant had breaks and worked for other employers before NY job, so no continuous relationship | Held: No continuous employment; breaks and intervening employers mean prior jobs do not aggregate (Meyer rule) |
| Whether §305.2(a)(2) applies (contract made in PA and employment not principally localized in any state) | Greenawalt: contract made in PA; if employment not localized in PA or NY then §305.2(a)(2) applies | Bristol: record shows employment was principally localized in NY, so (a)(2) inapplicable | Held: (a)(2) inapplicable because employment was principally localized in NY |
| Whether remand required to determine applicability of NY workers’ comp law under §305.2(a)(3) | Greenawalt: WCJ made no finding whether NY law applied; remand needed | Bristol: Claimant presented no evidence on NY law applicability; burden on Claimant to prove entitlement to PA jurisdiction | Held: No remand; Claimant presented no evidence on NY law applicability and bore the burden of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (POHL Transp.), 4 A.3d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (focus of §305.2 is claimant's employment; claimant bears burden to prove PA jurisdiction)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sporio), 615 A.2d 833 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (hire in one state for work exclusively in another supports localization in that other state)
- Oliveri v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (I.T.T. Grinnell), 542 A.2d 658 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (exclusive hiring for and work at out-of-state site precludes PA localization absent inapplicability of other state's law)
- Meyer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Raytheon Co.), 776 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (intervening breaks and work for other employers defeat continuous employment aggregation)
- Macomber v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Penske Transp. Servs.), 837 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer need not own property to have a "place of business"; control and regular operations at site suffice)
- George Liko Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Stripay), 616 A.2d 197 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant cannot invoke extraterritorial provision under (a)(3) without presenting evidence on foreign law applicability)
- Root v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (occasional work in PA does not establish principal localization where majority of work is out-of-state)