M.A. Beech Corp. v. WCAB (Mann)
45 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Decedent, a bridge inspector employed by M.A. Beech Corp., died in June 2013 after becoming pinned in an aerial man lift while alone at a job site.
- Claimant (widow) filed a fatal claim alleging the death arose in the course and scope of employment; Employer asserted an affirmative defense that Decedent violated a positive work rule by operating the lift solo, removing coverage under Section 301(c) of the Act.
- The WCJ bifurcated the defense issue, held that Employer failed to prove a positive rule prohibiting inspectors from using aerial man lifts or that Decedent knew of such a rule, and granted the fatal claim petition.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ; Employer appealed to this Court contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and claiming the WCJ’s decision was not reasoned.
- The Court upheld the WCJ: it found substantial evidence supported credibility determinations, no specific preexisting rule or notice to Decedent was proven, Employer had effectively waived enforcement, and Decedent was performing duties within his job scope when injured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a positive work order/rule prohibited inspectors from operating aerial man lifts | No specific rule existed; Decedent performed job duties using the lift | Employer: a rule (or PennDOT/contract rule) prohibited inspectors from operating lifts | Held: No specific, enforceable rule was proven for Decedent; WCJ credited evidence to the contrary |
| Whether Decedent knew of any prohibition | Claimant: no proof Decedent was at safety meeting or received rule; long use of lifts shows knowledge of operation but not of a prohibition | Employer: testimony and safety meeting sign-in showed notice to Decedent | Held: Employer failed to prove Decedent had actual knowledge; WCJ permissibly discredited testimony offered for notice |
| Whether violation (if any) caused the injury and removed it from course/scope | Claimant: even a rule violation would not remove coverage because Decedent was performing core job duties | Employer: violation of a positive work rule that is unrelated to job duties cuts off coverage | Held: Even assuming violation, injury occurred while performing essential job duties; compensation applies (Asplundh/Scott principles) |
| Adequacy of WCJ's reasoned decision and evidentiary handling | Claimant: WCJ provided rationale and resolved credibility; decision allows appellate review | Employer: WCJ failed to address certain testimony and misstated positions | Held: WCJ provided a reasoned decision and credibility determinations are for the WCJ; any minor misstatements were harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 47 A.3d 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (elements employer must prove for affirmative defense of rule violation)
- Scott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 957 A.2d 800 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (failure to use safety equipment does not bar benefits when activity is essential to job)
- Rox Coal Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 807 A.2d 906 (Pa. 2002) (employer must prove employee acted outside realm of work activities to deny benefits)
- Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 852 A.2d 459 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (worker who violated safety rule still entitled to benefits when performing job duties)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (standards for a "reasoned decision" permitting appellate review)