Mansfield Bros. Painting v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 287
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant (painter employed by Mansfield Brothers Painting) was assigned by his union to paint the Quadrangle Building at the University of Pennsylvania during summer 2009.
- On June 24, 2009, after work ended early, Claimant left the building, crossed Spruce Street, walked on a slate path on University property toward a train station, tripped on an uneven section ~150 feet from the Quadrangle Building, and injured his shoulder/neck/back.
- Claimant continued light-duty work with no wage loss until the job ended July 27, 2009; he later had shoulder surgery and filed a claim petition for benefits in January 2010.
- The WCJ awarded benefits finding the injury occurred in the course of employment; the Board affirmed (modifying the benefit start date to July 27, 2009) reasoning that Claimant was on employer premises and the slate path contributed to the injury.
- Employer appealed, arguing the injury occurred off Employer’s premises and that Claimant was not a traveling employee; Claimant alternatively argued he was on Employer’s premises or was a traveling employee furthering Employer’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury occurred "on the employer's premises" so as to be compensable as a premises injury | Claimant: he was on Employer’s premises because Employer required use of the building exit/route; the campus path was integral to Employer’s business | Employer: Claimant left the work site, crossed a public street, and was on University property not controlled or integral to Employer’s operations | Held: Reversed — the slate path was University property 150 feet from the work site, not integral to Employer’s business, so injury was off Employer’s premises |
| Whether Claimant was furthering Employer’s business (compensable off-premises) when injured | Claimant: his union assignment to painting work and lack of permanent assignment make him a traveling employee furthering Employer’s business while commuting | Employer: Claimant was assigned to a single, fixed project (the Quadrangle) until completion and thus not a traveling employee | Held: Rejected — Claimant was not a traveling employee; he had a specific project location and thus commuting injuries are not compensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (claimant bears burden to prove compensable injury under Act)
- U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (injury compensable if furthering employer’s business on or off premises)
- Newhouse v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Harris Cleaning Service, Inc.), 530 A.2d 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (premises rule for injuries on employer premises before/after work)
- Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Slaugenhaupt) v. United States Steel Corp., 376 A.2d 271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (three-part test for premises injuries)
- Waronsky v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Mellon Bank), 958 A.2d 1118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (premises may include property integral to employer’s business)
- Ortt v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (PPL Services Corp.), 874 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (property integral when employer requires employees to use it)
- Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp., 393 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 1978) (employer-provided entrance/exit off employer property can be part of premises if required)
- Eberle v. Union Dental Co., 134 A.2d 559 (Pa. 1957) (once employee leaves employer-controlled route, employer interest ends; sidewalk injury not compensable)
- Peterson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991) (travelling-employee exception to commuting rule for employees without fixed workplace)
- Foster v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Ritter Brothers, Inc.), 639 A.2d 935 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (employee assigned to a single project is not a travelling employee)