Because rehabbing properties for resale with construction work was a regular part of the employer’s business, they are the claimant’s statutory employer under §302 (a).

As a result of injuries while doing construction work for Defendant A, the claimant underwent amputations of his right pinky finger and right thumb. He filed a claim petition for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Guarantee Fund (Fund), which filed a petition to join Defendant B. The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the claim petitions, concluding that Defendant A was primarily liable and the Fund secondarily liable for payment of the claimant’s benefits. The joinder petition was dismissed.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) concluded that Defendant A remained primarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits, but Defendant B was secondarily liable as a statutory employer and, in the event of a default, the Fund would remain secondarily liable.

In its appeal to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the WCAB, Defendant B argued that the WCAB should have applied §302 (b) of the Act, not §302 (a), because under §302 (b), Defendant B would not be a statutory employer since he neither occupied nor controlled the property at the time of the claimant’s injury. The court rejected this argument, noting that a claimant must satisfy criteria set forth in either §302 (a) or §302 (b) in order to hold an entity liable as a statutory employer.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}