A Pennsylvania appeals panel has upheld a $7.3 million jury verdict against Independence Construction Corp. (ICC) in a case involving a worker who was struck by a SEPTA train while on the job. The ruling shuts down the company’s attempt to shield itself under workers’ compensation immunity, cementing the jury’s finding that ICC bore primary responsibility for the life-altering accident.

The 2-1 Superior Court decision affirms a Philadelphia jury’s conclusion that ICC was 70% liable, SEPTA carried 29% of the blame, and worker Jesse Hernandez was only 1% at fault. The ruling stems from a devastating 2018 incident in which Hernandez, digging a trench just four feet from the tracks, was struck by a moving train.

Catastrophic Injuries and Legal Battle

The accident left Hernandez with a traumatic brain injury and multiple other serious wounds. His attorneys argued that ICC maintained a dangerous job site and failed to protect workers from the obvious hazard of trains operating dangerously close to excavation work. SEPTA, meanwhile, settled out of the case during trial after being accused of failing to safely operate its trains near the site.

ICC countered by claiming statutory employer immunity under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Its lawyers insisted Hernandez qualified as its statutory employee because the subcontractor he worked for, Minority Services Inc. (also owned by ICC’s owner, Steven Hare), was performing “excavation” work—an exception under the law.

Court Draws the Line Between Digging and Excavation

The appeals panel, however, wasn’t persuaded. The majority emphasized that “excavation” and “digging” are not the same thing in the construction world. Excavation, the court explained, is a large-scale, industrial process, whereas digging is far narrower in scope. Because Hernandez was performing digging for electrical line installation rather than excavation, ICC could not claim immunity.

“Our examination suggests that ‘excavation’ should be construed narrowly and in its technical sense,” the court wrote, rejecting ICC’s broad interpretation of the statute.

A Dissenting Voice

Judge Victor P. Stabile, the lone dissenter, blasted the trial court for allowing testimony he argued unfairly tarnished Hare’s reputation. He said questions about Hare’s alleged contract integrity issues with SEPTA had no bearing on negligence and prejudiced the jury.

Attorneys Respond

Hernandez’s attorney, Jeff Goodman, celebrated the ruling as a victory for workers’ rights:
“Today’s opinion reinforces that the purpose of Pennsylvania’s Workers Compensation laws is to protect injured workers, not to shield negligent contractors from responsibility,” Goodman said.

Representatives for ICC and SEPTA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case was argued by attorneys Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Jeffrey Paul Goodman, and Samuel Benjamin Dordick of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC, alongside appellate specialist Howard J. Bashman. Independence was represented by William T. Salzer of Swartz Campbell LLC and William P. Barrett of Nationwide Insurance, while SEPTA’s legal team included Melanie J. Foreman of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin PC.