Six L'S Packing Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
44 A.3d 1148
Pa.2012Background
- Six L's Packing Co. contracted Garcia to provide transportation services for moving produce, using Garcia-employed truck drivers.
- Claimant, Garcia's employee, was injured on a Pennsylvania public roadway while transporting Six L's produce.
- Garcia lacked workers' compensation insurance; claimant pursued claims against Garcia and Six L's.
- Six L's contended it was not claimant's employer and that Section 302(a) liability required the McDonald factors and on-premises control.
- WCJ found Six L's liable under Section 302(a); WCAB affirmed, rejecting McDonald as applicable to 302(a) and treating Six L's as statutory employer; Commonwealth Court affirmed similar on reasoning.
- Supreme Court granted review to interpret Section 302(a) and harmonize it with Section 302(b) and related cases, ultimately holding 302(a) does not require McDonald factors or an owner-per se exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonald factors apply to Section 302(a) liability | Six L's argues McDonald governs 302(a) | Williamson contends McDonald does not apply to 302(a) | No McDonald test required under 302(a) |
| Whether a soil/rocks/minerals/timber limitation applies under 302(a) | Claimant supports broader 302(a) application beyond on-premises work | Six L's argues no such limitation under 302(a) | No soil/rocks/minerals/timber limitation; 302(a) applies to regular/recurrent business activities as well |
| Whether property owner status excludes liability under 302(a) | Owner exclusion not applicable to 302(a) per plain terms | Six L's relies on owner exclusion under McDonald | Owner exclusion does not apply to 302(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287 (Pa. 1930) (statutory-employer concept, on-premises control emphasis)
- Delich v. WCAB (Lyons), 661 A.2d 936 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (approved 302(a) liability without McDonald factors in certain contexts)
- Williams v. WCAB (Global Van Lines), 682 A.2d 23 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (mixed signals on McDonald applicability to 302(a))
- Gann v. WCAB (MBS Mgmt./Wellington East Dev.), 792 A.2d 701 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (treatment of 302(a) versus 302(b) considerations)
- Wright Demolition & Excavating Co. v. WCAB (Manuel), 61 Pa.Cmwlth. 479, 434 A.2d 232 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (on-site injury framework influencing 302(b) context)
- Leibensperger v. WCAB (Thomas H. Lewis Builders, Inc.), 813 A.2d 28 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (discussion of on-premises requirements in 302(b))
- Fonner v. Shandon, Inc., 555 Pa. 370, 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) (McDonald framework cited in statutory-employer analysis)
- Hannaberry HVAC v. WCAB (Snyder), 575 Pa. 66, 834 A.2d 524 (Pa. 2003) (remedial construction of WCA in workers' compensation)