Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendant corporation on the basis of the state’s application of the so-called “borrowed employee” doctrine since the plaintiff had been employed by a recruiting agency which, in turn, furnished plaintiff to the defendant corporation. Stressing that the issue turned upon whether the borrowing employer had the right to control not only the work to be done by the borrowed employee, but the manner of performing it, the appellate court pointed to the fact that the plaintiff had been directed by defendant’s representatives to perform the work that led to the injury. The appellate court added that it was clear from plaintiff’s Answers to defendant’s Interrogatories that the defendant had the right to control plaintiff’s work-related actions.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Burrell v. Streamlight, Inc., 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1110 (Nov. 7, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.