Thus, a contractor who hires a subcontractor becomes a "statutory employer" and is secondarily liable to the subcontractor's employees for workmen's compensation benefits. 77 P.S. § 52; Allen v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 15 (W.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd, 941 F.2d 1200 (3d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the statutory employer is immune from tort suits in the same manner as the actual employer.

All of the above elements must be established. A property owner is not a statutory employer within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Allen v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 15 (W.D.Pa. 1989), Mathis v. United Engineers and Constructors, 381 Pa. Super. 466, 554 A.2d 96 (1989). Under McDonald, the "owner" of the premises and the "employer" who hires the subcontractor must be two different entities for the "employer" to be accorded immunity as a statutory employer.

The court held that, for statutory employer purposes, "the name of the agency is irrelevant because the owner of the county prison is the County of Delaware, and it is simply a matter of bureaucratic organization that the Prison Board operates the prison on behalf of the County." Id. (citing Allen v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 15 (W.D.Pa. 1989)). In response, the Board argues that it is an entity distinct from Delaware County with independent obligations and powers, which is not "simply a matter of bureaucratic organization."

Pierson, 2000 WL 486608 at *3. We also find the reasoning in Allen v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 15 (W.D. Pa. 1989), applicable. Here, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) owned and operated the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center.