Grabowski, M. v. Carelink Community
230 A.3d 465
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Grabowski was a residential counselor at Carelink and was attacked by a resident while performing job duties on December 20, 2014; she alleges sexual assault and employer negligence in facility safety.
- Plaintiff received $75,365.88 in workers’ compensation benefits and then entered a compromise-and-release (C&R) agreement for an additional $40,000 on August 1, 2016; a WCJ approved the C&R.
- Plaintiff filed a negligence suit against Employer on December 19, 2016 alleging the attack occurred in the course and scope of employment and asserting Employer failed to provide adequate safety procedures and design.
- Employer pleaded WCA immunity and affirmative new matter showing the WC benefits and C&R; Plaintiff did not timely respond to new matter but later admitted the facts and attached the C&R and WCJ decision.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Employer on WCA immunity grounds; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Plaintiff was estopped from invoking the WCA personal-animus/third-party exception and, alternatively, that the complaint failed to plead facts showing a personal-motive attack.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on the pleadings was proper given disputed factual issues (attacker's motivation) | Grabowski: factual disputes (motivation) preclude JOP; trier of fact should decide | Carelink: pleadings/admitted documents show no disputed material facts and WCA bars suit | JOP proper; pleadings and WC adjudication dispose of claim as matter of law |
| Whether the personal animus / third-party attack exception to the WCA applies | Grabowski: sexual assault is not work-related; exception applies so tort suit allowed | Carelink: plaintiff has burden to prove exception and did not plead or prove personal motive; attacker was a resident met in course of employment | Exception did not apply; complaint alleged no personal motive and attack occurred in course of employment |
| Whether the WC C&R and WCJ approval preclude a tort suit (estoppel/judicial estoppel) | Grabowski: accepting benefits should not necessarily bar tort suit | Carelink: plaintiff actively obtained and had adjudication approving WC benefits for the injury; judicial/issue estoppel bars inconsistent position | Plaintiff estopped from now claiming the injury was not covered by WCA; tort action barred |
| Whether plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend complaint | Grabowski: trial court should have allowed amendment | Carelink: plaintiff waived this by failing to preserve in Rule 1925(b) and principal brief | Argument waived on appeal; not considered by court |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 615 A.2d 27 (Pa. 1992) (final WC adjudication estops plaintiff from invoking personal-animus exception)
- Krasevic v. Goodwill Indus. of Central Pa., 764 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 2000) (personal-fixation/co-worker sexual misconduct can fall outside WCA)
- Hershey v. Ninety–Five Assocs., 604 A.2d 1068 (Pa. Super. 1992) (sexual assault by a stranger/non–co-worker during work is covered by WCA)
- M & B Inn Partners, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Petriga), 940 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (unexpected assault by non-employee during job falls under WCA)
- Dunn v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 482 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Super. 1984) (WC adjudication can estop later inconsistent tort claims)
- Scantlin v. Ulrich, 465 A.2d 19 (Pa. Super. 1983) (dismissing tort claim at pleading stage where no allegation of personal motive)