Serrano v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
154 A.3d 445
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- On March 6, 2006, Jaime Serrano suffered burns in a workplace flash fire; Employer (Ametek) issued a Notice of Compensation Payable and paid disability and medical benefits.
- Serrano sued Aramark (provider of coveralls), alleging defective coveralls intensified burns; Serrano settled with Aramark for $2.7 million; Employer asserted a subrogation lien and escrowed funds.
- Parties stipulated some injuries (torso, shoulders, arms, legs) were aggravated by Aramark coveralls, while others (hands, neck, face, head, trachea, larynx, lungs) were disputed as to Aramark causation. WCJ found Aramark did not cause those disputed injuries.
- WCJ awarded Employer subrogation for most benefits but excluded $15,302.31 in medical expenses and a specific loss benefit related to disfigurement that were not caused by Aramark.
- The Board reversed, holding that because some work injuries were caused by the third party, Employer could subrogate against the entire tort fund. The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s order and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Serrano's Argument | Ametek's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple discrete work injuries arising from one accident count as a single "compensable injury" under §319 so Employer can subrogate against entire third‑party recovery | Subrogation limited to compensation for injuries actually caused "in whole or in part" by Aramark; employer must tie fund to each compensable injury | All injuries from the single accident constitute one compensable injury; because Aramark caused some injuries, Employer may subrogate against entire fund | Court held §319 requires the fund to relate to the same injury for which Employer is liable; Employer failed to show Aramark caused the disputed injuries, so Board erred in allowing full subrogation |
| Burden of proof to obtain subrogation | Employer must prove third‑party negligence compelled payments and fund corresponds to same injury(s) | Employer argued §319 is absolute where third party caused some part of the compensable injury | Court reiterated employer’s burden and found Employer did not link Aramark to the disputed injuries |
| Apportionment of recovery when tort settlement covers only some work injuries | Serrano sought prorated/limited subrogation (e.g., two‑thirds) tied to injuries Aramark aggravated | Employer sought full recovery of compensation paid | Court concluded apportionment is required where fund does not cover all compensable injuries and remanded for Board to address Serrano’s appeal from the WCJ decision |
| Whether equitable considerations can overcome §319’s language | Serrano argued statutory text limits subrogation; equitable maxims should not expand subrogation | Employer and Board relied on precedent describing §319 subrogation as broad/automatic | Court found statutory text controls; cannot treat multiple compensable injuries as one for §319 without evidence linking third party to each injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Chubb Corporation), 88 A.3d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (explains employer’s burden and that subrogation must relate to the same injury)
- Thompson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (USF & G Co.), 781 A.2d 1146 (Pa.) (treats §319 subrogation as broad but emphasizes statutory text)
- Dale Manufacturing Co. v. Bressi, 421 A.2d 653 (Pa.) (employer must show tort fund relates to the work injury; absence of proof defeats subrogation)
- Edder v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Glenshaw Glass Co.), 767 A.2d 617 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (requires causal connection between original work injury and subsequent tort liability to permit subrogation)
- Sharkey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sharkey’s American Hardware), 744 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (no subrogation where employer failed to show malpractice caused the compensable death)
- Goldberg v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Girard Provision Company), 620 A.2d 550 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishable: involved a single compensable injury and allocation among tortfeasors)