PA Liquor Control Board v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
29 A.3d 105
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Kochanowicz, a longtime general manager, was robbed at gunpoint in his Morrisville liquor store on April 28, 2008; he and a coworker were tied up but not physically injured.
- Post-incident, Claimant developed anxiety, depression, nightmares, and PTSD, and began treatment with Dr. Raditz; he filed a claimant petition seeking total disability benefits as work-related PTSD.
- Employer argued the robbery was a normal, foreseeable risk of the retail liquor industry and that Claimant’s injury was not compensable.
- WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony and Dr. Raditz, found the event an abnormal working condition, and awarded total disability benefits; Employer appealed to the Board, which affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court majority reversed, deeming the armed robbery a normal condition of the workplace given training and industry statistics; the dissent would have affirmed the WCJ/Board based on credibility and case-specific analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Event an abnormal working condition causing a work-related psychiatric injury? | Kochanowicz: Event was abnormal and caused PTSD; credible medical evidence supports abnormal condition. | Employer: Event was a normal risk in the industry; training and statistics show foreseeability makes it non-abnormal. | Event not abnormal; it was a normal condition of employment |
| Did the WCJ have credible support for finding an abnormal condition given employer training and statistics? | Claimant argues WCJ credibility determinations should be respected and not overridden by undiscredited evidence. | Employer argues the Board should adopt the broader industry-wide context and statistics. | Credibility and fact-finding remained with the WCJ; not controlling here due to error in treating the incident as normal |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc., 523 Pa. 509 (1990) (establishes the abnormal vs. subjective reaction framework for psychic injuries)
- Cantarella v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 835 A.2d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (abnormal condition analysis in prison context)
- RAG (Cyprus) Emerald Resources, L.P. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hopton), 590 Pa. 413 (2007) (two-prong abuse-of-discretion and abnormal condition analysis for psychic injuries)
- McLaurin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (SEPTA), 980 A.2d 186 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (frequency/foreseeability as part of abnormal condition assessment)
- Kennelty v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.), 594 Pa. 12 (2007) (WCJ credibility and fact-finder deference in abnormal condition cases)
- Babich v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 922 A.2d 57 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (claims requiring proof of abnormal working conditions and objective reality of injury)
- Payes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Commonwealth of PA/State Police), 5 A.3d 855 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (case-specific analysis in abnormal condition evaluation)