IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jian Li, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1332 C.D. 2017 : ARGUED: June 6, 2018 Workers’ Compensation Appeal : Board (New Li Nail Spa, Inc.), : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: October 17, 2018 Mr. Jian Li (Claimant) petitions for review of the August 24, 2017 Order of the Workers’ Compensation (WC) Appeal Board (Board), which reversed the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s (WCJ) Decision and Order and denied Claimant’s petition for workers’ compensation benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (WC Act)1 for injuries sustained while Ms. Giuying Hao, the owner, sole manager and president of New Li Nail Spa, Inc. (Employer) was driving Claimant to work. The issues before this Court are whether the Board erred in concluding that the Ridesharing Arrangements Act (Ridesharing Act)2 precluded 1 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2708. 2 Act of December 14, 1982, P.L. 1211, as amended, 55 P.S. §§ 695.1-695.9. In 2015, Section 1 of the Ridesharing Act was repealed, and other sections were amended by the Act of Claimant from recovering WC benefits and, if not, whether Claimant was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board. I. BACKGROUND Claimant worked as a manicurist for Employer. Employer provided lodging for its employees in a residence located approximately fifteen minutes away from the salon. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 8a, 10a, 38a. Employer also provided employees daily transportation to and from work in a van titled in Ms. Hao’s name. R.R. at 46a-49a, 52a-53a, 58a. On the morning of December 15, 2013, Ms. Hao was driving Claimant and other employees3 to work in her van when the van was in an accident. Claimant suffered a left femur fracture and lumbar vertebral fracture as a result of this accident. R.R. at 5a. On October 2, 2014, Claimant filed a WC Claim Petition, alleging that he sustained these injuries during the course and scope of his employment. R.R. at 166a. Employer filed an Answer, asserting that Claimant was barred from recovery under the Ridesharing Act. R.R. at 166a. July 10, 2015, P.L. 130. At the time of Claimant’s injury, the 1982 version of the Ridesharing Act was in effect, so we will apply that version of the statute herein. 3 Claimant and Mr. Xiao Q. Zhou both worked for Employer as manicurists. Both were injured in the same December 2013 van accident that resulted in bodily injuries to both employees. Claimant and Zhou are represented by the same counsel who briefed the identical issues in each appeal and Employer’s responsive briefs are virtually identical. As such, the Court heard argument, en banc, on employees’ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals