If you suffer an injury on a construction job in Pennsylvania, another person or company at the site may bear responsibility. Construction accidents take many forms: a falling steel girder; dropped tools or materials; a saw accident causing an amputation; defective scaffolding; a fall from an unsecured ladder; an unguarded floor opening; exposed electrical wiring; a crane accident; a forklift collision; unstable demolition debris; or inadequate protection from nearby traffic or trains.
These accidents can leave a worker facing:
- Severe emotional distress;
- Physical pain and suffering;
- Scarring and disfigurement from lacerations and surgery;
- An inability to enjoy family time or recreational activities; and
- Difficulty getting dressed, doing household chores, or completing other everyday tasks.
These losses may support a six- or even seven-figure verdict or settlement, depending on the circumstances. Cases involving spinal injuries, amputation, permanent disability, or death can carry especially significant damages.
But everything changes if the law considers the injured worker an “employee” of the negligent party—even if that party never issued the worker a paycheck. Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act generally replaces a negligence lawsuit against an employer with a more limited system of statutory benefits.
Limits of Workers’ Compensation
Pennsylvania workers’ compensation generally pays wage-loss benefits of approximately two-thirds of the worker’s average weekly wage. Statutory adjustments and limits apply. These benefits cover qualifying periods of lost earnings. A worker who returns at reduced pay may receive partial benefits.
Workers’ compensation also covers medical treatment and certain specific losses. But it generally limits disfigurement benefits to serious, permanent, and unsightly disfigurement of the head, face, or neck that is not ordinarily incident to the employment.
Workers’ compensation does not award damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of enjoyment of life. A worker may endure lasting pain, miss cherished family activities, or struggle with daily tasks. Yet workers’ compensation provides no separate payment for those losses.
The law creates a tradeoff. Workers can receive benefits without proving employer negligence. In exchange, employers generally gain protection from civil lawsuits seeking the broader damages described above.
The defendant’s relationship to the injured worker therefore matters greatly. Workers’ compensation generally bars negligence lawsuits against the worker’s employer. Under the statutory employer doctrine, that protection can extend to a contractor that never directly employed—or paid—the injured worker.
A Catastrophic Injury Beside Railroad Tracks
In Hernandez v. Independence Construction Corp., No. 1911 EDA 2023, slip op. at 1–5, 14–28 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2026) (en banc), the Superior Court considered whether that doctrine barred a construction worker’s negligence claim.
Jesse Hernandez worked for Minority Services, Inc., a subcontractor hired by Independence Construction Corporation (“ICC”). He was digging trenches for electrical conduit approximately four feet from SEPTA train tracks when a passing train struck him.
Hernandez survived but required a medically induced coma. His injuries included a traumatic brain injury, hearing loss, cervical ligament injuries, and fractures to his sternum, nose, cheeks, and skull. Although the opinion does not detail his daily life after the accident, injuries of this magnitude can affect communication, independence, family relationships, and the ability to work.
The contract required protective measures, including watch-persons and barriers. Hernandez presented expert testimony that the required protections were inadequate and that industry standards called for closing the tracks as trains approached the work area.
A jury awarded approximately $7.3 million, allocating 70% of the fault to ICC, 29% to SEPTA, and 1% to Hernandez. ICC argued that it was Hernandez’s statutory employer and therefore immune from the negligence claim.
When Does Another Contractor Become a Statutory Employer?
The doctrine reflects a statutory tradeoff: certain contractors assume potential responsibility for workers’ compensation benefits if a subcontractor fails to provide them. In exchange, qualifying contractors receive immunity from negligence lawsuits—even when they never actually pay benefits.
However, being called the “general contractor” does not automatically establish immunity.
The commonly applied McDonald test requires five elements:
- A contract with the property owner or someone acting in the owner’s position.
- Premises occupied by or under the contractor’s control.
- A subcontract made by that contractor.
- Part of the contractor’s regular business entrusted to the subcontractor.
- An injured employee of that subcontractor.
Courts must apply these requirements strictly. McDonald v. Levinson, 153 A. 424, 426 (Pa. 1930).
In Hernandez, ICC failed to establish an indisputable entitlement to immunity under this test. Evidence showed that SEPTA directed important aspects of the work and safety operations. ICC lacked a continuous presence, had no site trailer, and its owner was absent when Hernandez was injured. The disputed evidence concerning occupancy and actual control prevented ICC from overturning the verdict on this ground.
Digging a Trench Did Not Automatically Create Immunity
ICC also invoked separate statutory provisions covering certain excavation work and work that is a regular or recurrent part of the contractor’s business.
The court rejected both arguments. It distinguished work consisting of excavation from the temporary digging performed here as an incidental step in installing electrical conduit. It also upheld the finding that trenching and watch-person services were part of the subcontractor’s business, rather than ICC’s own regular or recurrent business on this record.
The Superior Court therefore affirmed the judgment. The seriousness of Hernandez’s injuries did not decide the immunity question; the contracts, business operations, and evidence of actual worksite control did.
Every Construction Injury Requires a Careful Review
Receiving workers’ compensation does not necessarily prevent an injured worker from pursuing a separate claim against a negligent contractor or another responsible third party. Conversely, a company that did not issue the worker’s paycheck may still qualify as a statutory employer and be protected from suit.
Contact Us Today!
Every case must be evaluated on its facts, including the contractual relationships, responsibility for safety, control of the premises, and circumstances of the accident. Call Elliott Law Group, P.C., for a consultation concerning any injury or construction law issue.
