PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
2/1/2026 – 2/28/2026
CO-EMPLOYER IMMUNITY
John Brown v. George Gaydos, an Individual, t/d/b/a Gaydos Construction
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania – Published Opinion
Decided: February 18, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Superior Court properly reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellant George Gaydos, based upon co-employee immunity where the record is clear that the plaintiff and defendant were employed by the same company and the plaintiff’s injury was compensable under the Worker’s Compensation Act, if the defendant was not working in the course of his performance of duties for the employer at the time?
Background:
Brown filed negligence action against Gaydos seeking damages for work-related injury that worker suffered while operating skid loader owned by Gaydos. Brown, while on his first day of employment with American Concrete Solutions, Inc. (ACS), was injured on an ACS job site. As Brown attempted to enter a skid loader, the skid loader’s hydraulic arm crushed him, and he suffered numerous severe injuries in the accident. ACS is owned by Gaydos and Mark Raymond, subject to a partnership agreement. Before forming ACS, Gaydos operated a sole proprietorship under the name Gaydos Construction. For his sole proprietorship, Gaydos had acquired a variety of construction equipment, including the skid loader. After forming ACS, Gaydos continued to individually own and insure the skid loader and would provide this to ACS as needed. Brown filed a Workers’ Compensation claim against ACS, which was not contested, and he received workers’ compensation benefits from ACS. Then, Brown filed a civil action against Gaydos for negligence. Gaydos filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the WCA provided him immunity from civil suit as either Brown’s employer or co-employee. Brown filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing Gaydos was not his employer. The Court of Common Pleas granted Gaydos’s motion for summary judgment. Brown appealed. A divided panel of the Superior Court affirmed. Brown requested en banc review, which the Superior Court granted. The Superior Court reversed and remanded. Gaydos’s petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed precluding summary judgment on grounds of co-employee immunity. “If disability or death is compensable under the act, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such disability or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person disabled or killed, except for intentional wrong. 77 P.S. § 72.” Gaydos argued that section 72 controls because the statute provides immunity to co-employees who are “in the same employ” as the injured worker, and the Court has broadly interpreted “in the same employ” as covering all employees employed by the same employer. Brown argument claims that section 72’s plain language requires a connection between the defendant co-employee’s negligence and their employment duties to trigger immunity. Under section 72, to obtain co-employee immunity in a civil negligence lawsuit, the defendant must establish that: (1) the disability or death was compensable under the WCA; and (2) the act or omission forming the basis of civil liability occurred while the defendant was in the same employ as the injured party. Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the allegedly negligent act or omission occurred while Gaydos was in the same employ as Brown. The foregoing presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Gaydos’s alleged negligence in maintaining and inspecting the skid loader occurred while he and Brown were in the same employ or whether they occurred in Gaydos’s separate and independent role as an individual or as the owner of a sole proprietorship.
Reversed.
JUSTICE BROBSON filed a concurring opinion, expressing his agreement that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the acts or omissions that form the basis of Brown’s claim against Gaydos occurred while Gaydos was in the same employ as Brown with ACS. The answer to this question turns on whether Gaydos was in the scope of his employment with ACS at the time of those acts or omissions.
JUSTICE WECHT filed a dissenting opinion, expressing his belief that the Majority misconstrued the case law and the language of the statutory provision “sets up a clear and simple test—‘the same employ’—and such words as scope of employment and course of employment are not used, we are not free to speculate that a more restrictive intention was envisioned by the legislature.” The temporal element merely refers to the fact that the employees must be acting as employees at the time of the accident.
COUNSEL FEE AWARDS
DISCRETIONARY AWARDS AND THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND
Randall E. Parrish v. Yeager Supply, Inc. (WC AB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania – Published Opinion
Decided: February 5, 2026
Issue:
Whether the Board erred in vacating the award of attorney’s fees against the Security Fund?
Background:
A Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted Claimant’s UR Petition and ordered Employer to pay the attorney’s fees of Claimant pursuant to Lorino v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), 671 Pa. 402, 266 A.3d 487 (2021). Specifically, the WCJ concluded that, despite Employer’s reasonable contest, an award of attorney’s fees to Claimant was appropriate and in keeping with the Act’s humanitarian and remedial purpose. Therefore, in addition to $502.95 in litigation costs, the WCJ ordered Employer to pay Claimant’s counsel $2,161.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Lorino. The Workers’ Compensation Security Fund (Security Fund) appealed the Decision, challenging only the award of attorney’s fees. The Board vacated the award of attorney’s fees but otherwise affirmed the Decision and Order.
Holding:
Per Lorino, when a contested case is resolved in favor of an employee, a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the claimant. Such an award is mandatory. Where, however, the employer has established a reasonable basis for the contest, an award of attorney’s fees may be excluded. In other words, the WCJ is permitted, but not required, to exclude an award of attorney’s fees. Section 440(a) of the Act only authorizes an award of attorney’s fees against an employer or insurer as defined by Section 401 of the Act. The Security Fund is not an ‘insurer’ with respect to Section 440(a) of the Act and cannot be assessed attorney’s fees. The Security Fund, like the Subsequent Injury Fund, is a statutorily-created entity that pays workers’ compensation benefits, but is not mentioned in Section 401 of the Act, thus, the legislature did not intend to include the Security Fund within the meaning of “insurer.” The Board did not err in vacating the assessment of attorney’s fees against the Security Fund. While, under Lorino, the WCJ had discretion under Section 440(a) of the Act not to assess the otherwise mandatory award of attorney’s fees because it found Employer’s contest reasonable, the WCJ had no authority to assess such an award against the Security Fund under Section 440(a), regardless of the reasonableness of Employer’s contest, because Section 440(a) does not apply to the Security Fund as it is not an “insurer” under the Act.
Affirmed.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
House Bill 183 is now Senate Bill 1094.
A few months ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, House L&I Committee, voted on what was then designated as HB 183. This Bill expands access to workers’ compensation disfigurement benefits by increasing the duration of eligibility from up to 275 weeks to a new level of up to 400 weeks, extending the benefit to the entire body, and not just to the head, face and neck, and allowing these benefits to be paid simultaneously with indemnity benefits. The bill was passed by the House on April 7, 2025, and has now been referred to the Senate Labor & Industry Committee. It is now under Senate Bill 1094 and has yet to be reported from the committee.
Other Proposed Legislation of Interest in the 2025-2026 session
The following selected amendments to the PA Workers’ Compensation Act have been proposed, but as of this date are in early stages, and no formal vote has been held, and these are referred to their respective L&I Committees:
In the Senate only: (these are still in committee)
Senate Bill 801 – Seeks to clarify that the Act provides the exclusive remedy for any injury or disease that may arise out of hazardous occupational exposure, whether the disease is compensable or not.
Senate Bill 894 – Seeks to clarify the “Independent Contractor Classification.”
Senate Bill 1053 – Seeks to clarify workers’ compensation coverage for EMS Volunteers.
Senate Bill 1151 – Removal of Clinical Practice Requirement for Physicians Performing Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs).
In the House Only: (these are still in committee)
House Bill 1181 – Workers’ Compensation – Whitmoyer Remedy – Due to the use of the word “installments,” the court ruled in Whitmoyer that the employer can only receive credit for future wage loss benefits (which are paid in installments) – but not future medical benefits (which are paid as medical costs are incurred). This ruling creates a situation where an injured worker can potentially receive a large jury award or settlement from the third party who caused his injury AND still requires his employer to continue paying his medical costs. This legislation proposes to amend the Act to allow for subrogation on future medicals.
House Bill 1766 – Workers’ Compensation Coverage of Prescribed Medical Cannabis (Formerly HB 1079).
House Bill 2087 – Ensuring that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are covered under workers’ compensation when injured during fundraising activities.
NEW JERSEY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
CASE SUMMARIES
2/1/2026 – 2/28/2026
SWITCHING PARTIES AFTER FILING ANSWER
Mejia Arboleda v. Paychex, et al.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
A-0085-25; 2026 WL 515987
Decided: 2/25/2026
Background:
Respondent, Prop N Spoon had an agreement with Paychex for Paychex to administer Prop N Spoon’s human resource functions, including providing workers’ compensation coverage to employees. Joann Mejia Arboleda filed a Claim Petition alleging a work injury. Prop N Spoon tendered the claim to Paychex and Goldberg Segalla was assigned as defense counsel. Goldberg Segalla filed an Answer to the Claim Petition as Prop N Spoon’s counsel. Goldberg Segalla subsequently filed an amended answer stating that it did not represent Prop N Spoon and denied coverage of the claim. Goldberg Segalla moved to dismiss the claim for coverage from Paychex. They asserted that Prop N Spoon concealed Arboleda’s employment from Paychex. Prop N Spoon retained counsel who filed an Answer to the claim and moved to disqualify Goldberg Segalla based on the adverse positions they took against Prop N Spoon on behalf of Paychex. Goldberg Segalla opposed the motion. The Judge disqualified Goldberg Segalla based on a conflict of interest. Goldberg Segalla moved for reconsideration. Following oral argument, the Judge denied reconsideration.
On Appeal, Goldberg Segalla argues that a hearing should have been held before disqualifying them. They further argue that they did not form an attorney client relationship with Prop N Spoon. They argued that filing the Answer on behalf of Prop N Spoon did not create an attorney client relationship and the association was generated automatically by the court’s electronic filing system.
Holding:
The Court affirmed the lower court’s Decision. They note that the Judge did not have to hold a hearing because he can adjudicate a disqualification motion on the papers. They further noted that the firm clearly represented Prop N Spoon when they filed an Answer. They note the firm later took a position adverse to Prop N Spoon. The court rejected the argument that the side switching was a result of the electronic filing system.
Affirmed.
NEW JERSEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Senate Bill 3342
Increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75.
Last Action: February 5, 2026 – Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Bill 3571
Provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers’ compensation claim regardless of outside employment.
Last Action: February 19, 2026 – Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Labor Committee
