J.L. Nagle. v. TrueBlue, Inc., Labor Ready, Inc. and Labor Ready Northeast, Inc. and Rye Twp.
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 449
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Douglas Bell, a day laborer hired through Labor Ready (a temp agency), was assigned by Rye Township to ride on the back of a Township trash truck; he fell from the moving truck on October 18, 2010 and later died from injuries.
- Labor Ready recruited, paid, trained generally, provided gloves and workers’ compensation coverage for Bell; the Township provided site-specific supervision and directed Bell’s daily work on the truck.
- Labor Ready’s workers’ compensation carrier paid approximately $770,000 in benefits; Nagle (executor) previously filed and resolved a workers’ compensation penalty petition against Labor Ready, accepting a lump-sum resolution.
- Nagle later sued Labor Ready and the Township in tort (negligence, wrongful death, survival). Both defendants moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under Section 303(a) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and (as to Labor Ready) judicial estoppel.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants; Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding (1) Nagle was judicially estopped from denying Labor Ready was Bell’s employer and (2) both Labor Ready and the Township are immune under the Act’s exclusivity provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable doctrines (judicial estoppel) bar Nagle from suing Labor Ready | Nagle: equitable doctrines do not bar suit because Labor Ready was not Bell’s employer at time of injury | Labor Ready: Nagle previously affirmed Labor Ready was Bell’s employer in WC proceedings and accepted benefits; judicial estoppel applies | Court: Judicial estoppel bars Nagle from denying Labor Ready was employer; estoppel supports dismissal |
| Whether Section 303(a) exclusivity bars tort suits against one or both alleged employers | Nagle: only the entity that had right to control (the Township) should be immune; Labor Ready should remain liable | Defendants: both are employers under Act indicators (hiring, pay, control aspects) and Section 303(a) can immunize multiple employers | Court: Both Labor Ready and the Township are immune; an injured worker may have more than one employer and the Act’s exclusivity applies to all such employers |
Key Cases Cited
- JFC Temps, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lindsay), 680 A.2d 862 (Pa. 1996) (borrowed servant test: right to control is dispositive for employer status)
- Mature v. Angelo, 97 A.2d 59 (Pa. 1953) (factors indicating servant remains employee of original master)
- Capozzoli v. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp., 42 A.2d 524 (Pa. 1945) (both actual and statutory employers entitled to Act immunity)
- Temple v. Milmont Fire Co., 525 A.2d 848 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (an employee may have more than one employer under the Act; multiple employers can be immune)
- Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013) (Workers’ Compensation Act substitutes compensation for common-law tort remedies and exclusivity of remedy)