Marazas v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 405

Claimant (driver technician for Vitas) reported to employer premises after an on-call weekend, reviewed a long multi-state itinerary, told manager Rita Carroll he was too tired and asked that some stops be removed; manager refused.
Claimant handed in his keys and phone and said he quit; manager escorted him to the truck to remove personal belongings per employer policy and directed him to return to the truck.
While walking to the warehouse after removing items, Claimant tripped over employer-owned pallet jack on employer premises, fell and was injured; manager witnessed the fall.
Claimant initially sued in state court as a business invitee but withdrew the suit after employer’s pleadings admitted Claimant was acting in the scope of employment and asserted exclusivity under the Workers’ Compensation Act; Claimant then filed a workers’ compensation claim petition.
WCJ credited Claimant, found the injury occurred on employer premises while Claimant was acting at employer’s direction cleaning out the truck, and awarded benefits; the Board remanded and later reversed relying on Little (concluding the injury related to a final act of employment after termination).
Commonwealth Court reversed the Board, holding judicial estoppel did not apply and substantial evidence supported the WCJ’s finding Claimant was within course and scope of employment when injured.

Issue	Marazas' Argument	Vitas' Argument	Held
Whether judicial estoppel bars Vitas from denying Claimant’s employee status due to prior civil-pleading admissions	Employer admitted in state-court pleadings that Marazas was its employee and within scope; that admission should estop Vitas now	Employer argues no estoppel because the prior pleading withdrawal did not involve a decision and Marazas waived the issue	Denied: judicial estoppel not applicable—prior inconsistent pleadings were not "successfully maintained" by a decision-maker and withdrawal does not satisfy the doctrine
Whether Claimant was within course and scope of employment when injured after quitting but while on employer premises performing a task	Marazas: even though he quit, he was acting at manager’s direction, under supervision, cleaning out truck on employer premises and thus furthering employer’s interests	Vitas: Claimant had quit before the fall, severing employment; injury was a final act related to termination and not compensable (Little)	Held compensable: WCJ credibility findings supported that Claimant acted at employer’s direction on premises and therefore was within course and scope; Little distinguishable

Little v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (B&L Ford/Chevrolet), 23 A.3d 637 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (held injuries related only to final act of employment after termination are not compensable)
O’Rourke v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Gartland), 83 A.3d 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (explains two situations in which injury may arise in course of employment: actually furthering employer’s business or present on employer premises and injured by condition/operation)
Wetzel v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Parkway Serv. Station), 92 A.3d 130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (course of employment construed liberally; focus on furthering employer’s interests)
Sunbeam Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 781 A.2d 1189 (Pa. 2001) (purpose of judicial estoppel is to prevent parties from playing fast and loose with the courts)
Ham v. Gouge, 257 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1969) (withdrawal of prior action where no adjudication occurred does not support estoppel in subsequent proceeding)