D & R Construction v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Suarez, Travelers Insurance Company, Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund, and T & L Development); Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Suarez, and D & R Construction, T & L Development, and Travelers Insurance Company)

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act could not be applied retroactively to determine whether the claimant was an employee or independent contractor because it altered substantive rights and lacked express retroactive language. The court also held that the Act could not be used as guidance in applying the traditional common-law employment-status factors. The court reversed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s order and remanded for analysis under the common-law factors alone.

Holdings

1. The Construction Workplace Misclassification Act may not be applied retroactively in a workers' compensation matter to determine whether an individual was an employee or an independent contractor when the injury occurred before the Act's enactment and effective date.
2. The Construction Workplace Misclassification Act may not be used as guidance for applying the traditional common-law factors to determine whether an employment relationship existed.
3. The Board's order must be reversed and the matter remanded because the Board relied on Construction Workplace Misclassification Act criteria; on remand, the Board must determine employment status solely under the traditional common-law factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act may be applied retroactively to determine whether a claimant was an employee or an independent contractor when the injury occurred before the Act's enactment and effective date.
2. Whether the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act may be used as guidance in applying the traditional common-law factors governing whether an employment relationship exists.
3. Whether the Board's finding that Suarez was an employee could stand when the Board relied on Construction Workplace Misclassification Act criteria rather than exclusively on the traditional common-law factors.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded