Murphy v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
110 A.3d 227
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Murphy, general manager of Ace Check Cashing, filed a WC claim for PTSD and physical injuries after a June 19, 2010 armed robbery at the main office.
- She sought benefits for mental injury and a penalty petition for denial of benefits.
- WCJ found Murphy’s physical injuries minor and not causally linked to the incident, but credited PTSD stemming from the robbery.
- Medical evidence showed Dr. Landes diagnosed PTSD; Dr. Temple attributed physical injuries to the incident, and Dr. Brody questioned ongoing physical causation.
- Employer presented security-training evidence and witnesses about procedures; surveillance video depicted the robbery; but did not dispute PTSD as a mental injury.
- WCJ concluded the robbery was not an abnormal working condition for a general manager in a check-cashing business; Board affirmed; Payes II analysis later required remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental injury falls under mental/mental vs physical/mental standard | Murphy argues for physical/mental standard; Donovan framework applies | Employer/Board contends mental/mental standard controls | Mental/mental standard governs; not physical/mental here |
| Whether the 2010 robbery was an abnormal working condition under Payes II | Robbery was singular/extraordinary for her role as manager | Event not abnormal given prior robberies and training | Remand required to apply Payes II analysis to determine abnormal condition |
| Whether the WCJ erred in evaluating the physical injuries from the robbery | Bruising and chest pain tied to the incident; support for physical stimulus | Bruising slight; medical treatment not established; focus on PTSD | No reversible error; physical injuries not controlling under mental/mental framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Community Health Services), 550 Pa. 550 (Pa. 1998) (physical stimulus can cause mental injury in some contexts but not here)
- Donovan v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Academy Medical Realty), 739 A.2d 1156 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (physical stimulus requires medical treatment and relation to mental injury)
- Bartholetti v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (School District of Philadelphia), 927 A.2d 743 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (physical injury leading to mental disability supports physical/mental standard)
- Schulz v. Board (Pittsburgh Bd. of Ed.), 840 A.2d 1078 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (physical/mental standard may apply when physical injury treated; not always)
- Cantarella v. Department of Corrections/SCI at Waymart, 835 A.2d 870 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (physical/mental standard applied where physical injury accompanies mental injury)
- Kochanowicz v. PA Liquor Control Board, PA Liquor Control Board v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kochanowicz) (Pa. 2014) (Payes II remand framework for abnormal working conditions; highly fact-specific)
- Payes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Commonwealth of PA/State Police), 79 A.3d 543 (Pa. 2013) (establishes Payes II abnormal-working-condition standard; case-specific, fact-intensive)
- Kochanowicz v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (PA Liquor Control Board), 108 A.3d 922 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (Kochanowicz III—application of Payes II to determine abnormal condition)