Thought Leadership

Immunity under Pennsylvania’s Worker’s Compensation Act is a powerful tool against tort liability—but the viability of the statutory employer doctrine was called into question when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide both: (1) whether statutory employer immunity remained a viable legal doctrine; and (2) whether immunity under the Act can be waived.

The court ultimately rejected the challenge, finding itself foreclosed by stare decisis and legislative acquiescence, and upheld the statutory employer doctrine. Consequently, under the Act, a general contractor that hires a subcontractor to perform work on a jobsite is deemed an “employer” that is secondarily liable to the injured employee of the subcontractor for the payment of compensation under the Act, provided that the subcontractor—the one primarily liable—fails to make payment. In exchange for this imposition of secondary liability, the Act’s statutory employer provision in Section 203 of the Act, 77 P.S. § 52, extends to a general contractor the same tort immunity afforded to the subcontractor of the injured worker.

The court rejected the appellant’s assertion that “an injured employee of a subcontractor” could be allowed “to recover for his workplace injury both under the Act against his direct employer and civilly in a court of law against the general contractor for its negligence if the general contractor’s liability did not transform into primary liability[.]” Id. at *1

Further, the court found employers cannot waive statutory employer status as the Act “deprives the common pleas courts of jurisdiction of common law actions in tort for negligence against employers” and the “lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter may be raised at any time” including “by the court sua sponte if necessary.” Id. at 11. As such, this doctrine remains a powerful tool for prospective statutory employers sued in negligence actions.