Pennsylvania: Suit by Borrowed Employee Against Borrowing Employer Barred

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.