204 A.3d 549
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Claimant (James McDermott), a Pennsylvania resident and union carpenter, injured his right shoulder on February 9, 2016 while working at Brand Industrial Services’ permanent facility inside the Delaware City Oil Refinery. Employer accepted and paid Delaware workers’ compensation benefits.
- Claimant filed a Pennsylvania Claim Petition (March 25, 2016) seeking Pennsylvania benefits and a Penalty Petition for alleged failure to timely accept/deny; Employer denied Pennsylvania jurisdiction, arguing the injury was in Delaware.
- Claimant had worked for Employer at a Marcus Hook, PA refinery for much of 2015, but was laid off December 31, 2015; he then accepted a temporary Delaware assignment (hired through the Delaware union hall) beginning January 12, 2016 and completed new-hire, site-specific, and DHS clearance requirements.
- Employer’s Delaware site is a year-round, permanent facility with on-site payroll and full-time staff; Claimant was paid the Delaware trade rate and treated as a temporary/new hire for that project.
- The WCJ found Employer’s witnesses credible, concluded Claimant’s Marcus Hook employment ended with the December 2015 layoff, that the Delaware work constituted a new, separate employment relationship, and that at the time of injury Claimant’s employment was principally localized in Delaware.
- The Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court likewise affirmed, holding Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction under Section 305.2(a)(1) because Claimant’s employment was principally localized in Delaware at the time of injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania has jurisdiction under 77 P.S. § 411.2(a)(1) (employment "principally localized" in PA at time of injury) | McDermott: had ongoing employment primarily localized in PA (Marcus Hook) and was domiciled in PA; Delaware assignment was an extension of that relationship | Brand: Delaware assignment was a separate, temporary hire (different rate, new-hire paperwork, site training, DHS clearance); Claimant worked exclusively in Delaware when injured | Court: Employer’s evidence and WCJ credibility findings establish no ongoing PA employment relationship; at injury time employment was principally localized in Delaware, so PA lacks jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Elk Mountain Ski Resort, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tietz), 114 A.3d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (claimant bears burden to prove jurisdictional elements by preponderance)
- Williams v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (POHL Transp.), 4 A.3d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (focus of § 305.2 is claimant’s employment location)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sporio), 615 A.2d 833 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (multiple distinct jobs may be treated as single employment only when an ongoing relationship exists)
- Greenawalt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bristol Envtl., Inc.), 91 A.3d 305 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (no continuous employment where jobs are per-project with layoffs and claimant worked for other employers between assignments)
- Taylor v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Board (Ace Installers, Inc.), 543 A.2d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (contrast: ongoing/guaranteed employment commenced in PA supported PA jurisdiction)
- Goldberg v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Star Enter.), 696 A.2d 263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (permanent employee regularly working from PA stores supported PA localization)
- Anderson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Penn Ctr. For Rehab), 15 A.3d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (WCJ has exclusive province over credibility and weight of evidence)
- Minicozzi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Indus. Metal Plating, Inc.), 873 A.2d 25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (court is bound by WCJ credibility determinations)