## Facts

- A temporary employment agency hired Alonzo Lindsay and assigned him to work at a warehousing company as a tractor-trailer driver.
- The agency paid Lindsay, but Lindsay reported each day to the warehousing company rather than the agency.
- The warehousing company’s manager directed Lindsay’s day-to-day work, including assignments, hours, and which truck to use.
- The warehousing company signed Lindsay’s time slips, evaluated his performance, and could request a replacement worker.
- Lindsay also performed other tasks at the warehousing company, such as stacking boxes and running errands.
- Lindsay slipped and fell while exiting the cab of the warehousing company’s truck, developed blood clots, and later underwent amputation of his leg.
- Lindsay filed a workers’ compensation claim against the agency; the agency joined the warehousing company to shift liability.

## Issues

1. Which entity was the employer responsible for workers’ compensation benefits when a temporary agency places a worker with a client company.
2. Whether the client company’s right to control and supervise the worker’s daily performance established it as the responsible employer despite the agency’s hiring and payment.
3. Whether contractual risk-allocation between the agency and the client company can determine the employer liable to the injured worker under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the client company (the borrowing/special employer) was the employer responsible for paying workers’ compensation benefits.
- The Court left undisturbed the award of benefits and the finding that the injury and resulting disability were causally related to the work incident.
- The Court rejected the intermediate appellate court’s reallocation of liability to the temporary agency and reinstated the administrative board’s determination assigning liability to the client company.

## Legal Principles

- Employer status for workers’ compensation is a question of law based on established findings of fact.
- The dominant factor in determining the responsible employer in a loaned-employee arrangement is which entity has the right to control the manner of the worker’s performance.
- Hiring and wage payment by a general employer are relevant but not dispositive when another entity directs the worker’s daily duties within its business.
- Private contractual provisions allocating workers’ compensation responsibility may govern reimbursement between businesses but cannot alter or reduce the injured worker’s statutory rights.
- Appellate review in workers’ compensation cases is limited to constitutional error, legal error, and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

In a temporary staffing arrangement, workers’ compensation liability rests with the business that controls the employee’s day-to-day work as a borrowed/special employer; contractual risk-shifting between the businesses does not determine the worker’s statutory right to recover benefits from the responsible employer.


JFC Temps, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lindsay), 680 A.2d 862 (Pa. 1996)