Hammermill factors in Pennsylvania

2020See e.g., Helsel, 797 A.2d at 1057 (private entity engaged in the management and administration of a county- owned nursing home was not entitled to immunity because it was primarily acting on behalf of and in its own interest “in the course of promoting its business of selling management services for profit”); Smith v. Porter Township, Clinton County, 595 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (case remanded to determine whether an employee of an engineering firm under contract with a township to perform duties of a sewage enforcement officer was an employee or independent contractor under the Hammermill

2020See e.g., Helsel, 797 A.2d at 1057 (private entity engaged in the management and administration of a county- owned nursing home was not entitled to immunity because it was primarily acting on behalf of and in its own interest “in the course of promoting its business of selling management services for profit”); Smith v. Porter Township, Clinton County, 595 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (case remanded to determine whether an employee of an engineering firm under contract with a township to perform duties of a sewage enforcement officer was an employee or independent contractor under the Hammermill

2020See e.g., Helsel, 797 A.2d at 1057 (private entity engaged in the management and administration of a county- owned nursing home was not entitled to immunity because it was primarily acting on behalf of and in its own interest “in the course of promoting its business of selling management services for profit”); Smith v. Porter Township, Clinton County, 595 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (case remanded to determine whether an employee of an engineering firm under contract with a township to perform duties of a sewage enforcement officer was an employee or independent contractor under the Hammermill

2020See e.g., Helsel, 797 A.2d at 1057 (private entity engaged in the management and administration of a county- owned nursing home was not entitled to immunity because it was primarily acting on behalf of and in its own interest “in the course of promoting its business of selling management services for profit”); Smith v. Porter Township, Clinton County, 595 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (case remanded to determine whether an employee of an engineering firm under contract with a township to perform duties of a sewage enforcement officer was an employee or independent contractor under the Hammermill

2019Id. at 1164 .

2019Id. at 1164 .

1996The Hammermill factors are: “(1) control of manner work is to be done; (2) responsibility for result only; (3) terms of agreement between the parties; (4) the nature of the work or occupation; (5) skill required for performance; (6) whether one is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (7) which party supplied the tools; (8) whether payment is by the time or by the job; (9) whether work is part of the regular business of the employer; (10) the right to terminate the employment at any time.” See id. at 370, 243 A.2d at 392 .

1996The Hammermill factors are: “(1) control of manner work is to be done; (2) responsibility for result only; (3) terms of agreement between the parties; (4) the nature of the work or occupation; (5) skill required for performance; (6) whether one is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (7) which party supplied the tools; (8) whether payment is by the time or by the job; (9) whether work is part of the regular business of the employer; (10) the right to terminate the employment at any time.” See id. at 370, 243 A.2d at 392 .

2021Appellants do not challenge the trial court’s Hammermill reasoning and explain how the trial court erred. ____________________________________________ turn to our colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.” Haan v. Wells, 103 A.3d 60 , 68 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted and formatting altered). 9 See also 43 P.S. § 933.6 (discussing the administrative penalties that may be imposed by the “Secretary of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth or the secretary’s authorized representative” (referencing § 933.2)), § 933.7 (stating that the secretary may issue a stop-

2021Appellants do not challenge the trial court’s Hammermill reasoning and explain how the trial court erred. ____________________________________________ turn to our colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.” Haan v. Wells, 103 A.3d 60 , 68 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted and formatting altered). 9 See also 43 P.S. § 933.6 (discussing the administrative penalties that may be imposed by the “Secretary of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth or the secretary’s authorized representative” (referencing § 933.2)), § 933.7 (stating that the secretary may issue a stop-

2020See Cornell Narberth, LLC v. Borough of Narberth, 167 A.3d 228, 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); Higby Development, LLC v. Sartor, 954 A.2d 77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 991 A.2d 305 (Pa. 2010); see also Spencer v. Grill (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 913 C.D. 2017, filed April 10, 2018).5 5 Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures authorizes the citation of unreported panel decisions issued after January 15, 2008, for their persuasive value, but not as binding precedent. 210 Pa. Code §69.414 (a). 7 In Higby, the township utilized a private company to serve as its

2020See Cornell Narberth, LLC v. Borough of Narberth, 167 A.3d 228, 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); Higby Development, LLC v. Sartor, 954 A.2d 77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 991 A.2d 305 (Pa. 2010); see also Spencer v. Grill (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 913 C.D. 2017, filed April 10, 2018).5 5 Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures authorizes the citation of unreported panel decisions issued after January 15, 2008, for their persuasive value, but not as binding precedent. 210 Pa. Code §69.414 (a). 7 In Higby, the township utilized a private company to serve as its

2018Sarver Towing, 736 A.2d at 63 .

2018Sarver Towing, 736 A.2d at 63 .

1996Lastly, the Commonwealth Court in Murray stated, “[I]f the school district based its argument that Zarger was not entitled to indemnity on the ground that he was an independent contractor, then the Hammermill factors would apply.” Murray v. Zarger, supra at 161 , 642 A.2d at 577 .

1996Lastly, the Commonwealth Court in Murray stated, “[I]f the school district based its argument that Zarger was not entitled to indemnity on the ground that he was an independent contractor, then the Hammermill factors would apply.” Murray v. Zarger, supra at 161 , 642 A.2d at 577 .