125 A.3d 1184
Pa.2015Background
- Claimant (Laura O’Rourke) was paid through a state program (accessAbilities) to provide attendant care to her adult son, Joshua Gartland, who moved into her home and was designated the consumer-employer under a consumer model.
- Employer received funding for up to 64 care hours weekly but did not qualify for overnight/24-hour care; Claimant sometimes provided evening/weekend care and would log hours the next day.
- In the early morning hours while sleeping in her home bedroom, Claimant was violently stabbed by Employer (her son); Employer later pled guilty to attempted murder and other charges.
- Claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits, arguing the injury arose in the course of employment; SWIF (on Employer’s behalf) contested compensability.
- WCJ found injury compensable (Claimant was on employer’s premises and attack not shown to be purely personal); WCAB reversed. The Commonwealth Court en banc reversed WCAB applying the “bunkhouse rule.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held Claimant’s presence at the time of injury was not “required by the nature of her employment,” declined to apply Malky’s bunkhouse rule, and reversed the Commonwealth Court (majority). Justice Todd dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s injury arose in course of employment because she was required by nature of employment to be on the premises | O’Rourke: her job required living/providing care in the same residence; practical necessity made her presence required | SWIF: no contractual or programmatic requirement to live or be present overnight; presence was familial and voluntary, not employment-mandated | Held: Not required by nature of employment; presence was not employment-compelled, so injury not compensable |
| Applicability of the “bunkhouse rule” (Malky) to a caregiver living with the consumer-employer | O’Rourke: Malky supports compensation where employee has no reasonable alternative to live on premises; practical necessity parallels Malky | SWIF: Malky inapplicable—there employer furnished/controlled lodging and required presence to further business; here employer did not provide or control Claimant’s home | Held: Malky inapplicable—no employer control/furnishing of premises nor necessity tied to employer’s business; parties’ living arrangement was personal/familial |
| Whether the premises were ‘‘occupied or under control of the employer’’ when attack occurred | O’Rourke: Employer occupied the home and the employer’s business (care) was carried on there; sleeping quarters should count | SWIF: Employer did not own, lease, control, or maintain Claimant’s home; residence was Claimant’s property and not employer-controlled premises | Held: Dispositive ruling rested on prong of required presence; Court found lack of employment requirement and emphasized absence of employer control—did not extend bunkhouse premises treatment |
| Whether the third-person intentional-act exclusion is rebutted (attack by employer presumed work-related) | O’Rourke: Rebuttable presumption applies when injured by another employee; WCJ found SWIF failed to show personal motive | SWIF: Attack was personal and unrelated to employment; employer’s motive unknown but familial/personal context shows non-work-related animus | Held: Majority did not reach a favorable finding for Claimant on this basis after finding failure on required-presence prong; dissent would apply presumption and find presumption unrebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Malky v. Kiskiminetas Valley Coal Co., 278 Pa. 552, 123 A. 505 (Pa. 1924) (bunkhouse rule: employer-required residence on premises can render leisure-time injuries compensable)
- Kmart Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Fitzsimmons), 561 Pa. 111, 748 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000) (distinguishes when employee is not furthering employer’s business and outlines premises/required-presence test)
- Eberle v. Union Dental Co., 390 Pa. 112, 134 A.2d 559 (Pa. 1957) (employee absent required-presence: injured after leaving workplace—no compensation)
- Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130, 615 A.2d 27 (Pa. 1992) (rebuttable presumption that injury by another employee at work is compensable unless employer rebuts)
- Lehigh Cnty. Vo-Tech Sch. v. W.C.A.B. (Wolfe), 539 Pa. 322, 652 A.2d 797 (Pa. 1995) (statutory requirement that injury arise in course of employment and be related thereto)