O'Rourke v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 38
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Claimant Laura O’Rourke was employed as a caregiver by her son, Employer Joshua Gartland, under a state-funded consumer model; care was provided in Claimant’s home for up to 64 hours per week.
- Claimant filed a claim petition on May 7, 2009 alleging work-related injuries from an April 11, 2009 assault by Employer while she slept.
- Claimant later filed a review and a medical review petition on October 27, 2009 seeking medical treatment and wage impairment related to PTSD.
- The WCJ found Claimant’s presence on Employer’s premises was required by the nature of the employment and awarded benefits; Employer did not participate in the proceeding.
- The Board reversed, relying on Pypers v. WCAB to conclude Claimant was not required to be on the premises at the time of the injury, and thus denied compensability; the court reverses that Board decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was required by the nature of employment to be on Employer’s premises | O’Rourke was practically required to live with Employer to provide care | Gartland contends she was not required to be on premises at the time of injury | Yes; Claimant was practically required to live with Employer and thus on premises |
| Whether Claimant’s residence should be treated as Employer’s premises under the bunkhouse rule | Premises include Claimant’s home where care was provided and sleeping occurs | Premises limited to property controlled by Employer; sleeping at home not on premises | Yes; Claimant’s residence was Employer’s premises under the bunkhouse rule |
| Whether the injury was caused by the condition of the premises or by Employer’s business affairs | Injury occurred on premises while fulfilling employment duties | Injury resulted from a personal assault not related to employment | Injury was caused by the operation of Employer’s business on the premises; coverage applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Malky v. Kiskiminetas Valley Coal Co., 278 Pa. 552, 123 A.5 505 (1924) (Pa. 1924) (bunkhouse rule; presence on premises required by employment nature)
- Slaugenhaupt v. U.S. Steel Corp., 376 A.2d 271, 373 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (Pa.Cmwlth. 1977) (two-part test for course of employment including premises presence)
- Pypers v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Baker), 105 Pa.Cmwlth. 448, 524 A.2d 1046 (1987) (Pa.Cmwlth. 1987) (board’s reliance on premises not occupied by employment; distinguish bunkhouse)
- ICT Group v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Churchray-Woytunick), 995 A.2d 927, 931 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (premises not limited to employer’s property for section 301(c))
- Wills Eye Hospital v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Dewaele), 582 A.2d 39, 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988) (presumption of coverage when injury on employer’s premises by fellow employee)