Appeal from the Judgment entered on September 24, 1984, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 2822 April Term, 1984.
Richard N. Shapiro, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Wayne A. Schaible, Philadelphia, for appellees.
[ 343 Pa. Super. Page 412]
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in sustaining appellees' preliminary objections. The trial court concluded that appellant's sole remedy was provided by The Workers' Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1, et seq. (herein "the Act"), and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
[ 343 Pa. Super. Page 413]
We affirm the trial court and conclude that preliminary objections were properly sustained but for reasons different from the trial court's.*fn1
The relevant facts are as follows. Appellant sustained an injury within the scope of his employment. His employer was insured by appellee Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company (PMA). Appellant was paid workers' compensation benefits for a short period of time. Appellant attempted to return to work, but was unable to do so because of his injuries. He filed a petition to receive additional workers' compensation and to contest the prior termination of benefits.
Prior to a compensation hearing, and in appellant's presence, appellant's counsel asked Christopher Pakuris, in-house counsel for PMA, and one of appellees herein, whether appellant would be paid workers' compensation benefits. Appellant claims appellee replied "We would pay him if he wasn't represented by you."
Appellant filed a suit charging intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that as a result of appellee's statement, appellant became nervous, worried, experienced insomnia and suffered stomach disorders.
Appellees raised preliminary objections on several grounds. The trial court sustained the objections on the grounds that appellees were immune from suit.*fn2 Appellant's sole remedy ...