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.
