Pa Liquor Control Board v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
108 A.3d 922
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Gregory Kochanowicz, a 30-year employee and store general manager for the PA Liquor Control Board, was robbed at gunpoint in his store on April 28, 2008; the robber held a gun to his head, tied him and a co-worker with duct tape, and forced him to open the safe and a lockbox.
- Claimant developed PTSD and related disorders after the incident; his treating psychologist and employer’s psychiatric expert both agreed the PTSD was caused by the robbery.
- WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony, found the event a "singular, extraordinary" workplace episode, and concluded the gunpoint robbery was an abnormal working condition; WCJ awarded benefits.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court initially reversed, finding robberies and employer training made the event a normal working condition.
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration under Payes II, instructing deference to the WCJ’s factfinding in these fact-sensitive mental-injury cases.
- On remand the Commonwealth Court upheld the WCJ, finding its factual findings supported by substantial evidence and that the specific armed robbery was not a normal working condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s PTSD arose from an "abnormal working condition" (i.e., compensable) | The robbery was a singular, extraordinary event for Claimant (never before experienced in 30 years), so his PTSD resulted from an abnormal working condition | Employer: prior robberies at other stores and workplace-violence training made armed robbery a normal risk of the job | Held for Claimant: WCJ credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence; the particular gunpoint robbery was an abnormal working condition |
| Whether employer training and other robberies defeat abnormal-condition finding | Training focused on safety, not normalization; Claimant still never experienced such an event | Training and frequency of robberies show risk was foreseeable and routine | Held for Claimant: training and other occurrences did not render this specific incident normal; WCJ reasonably discounted employer evidence |
| Whether appellate court must defer to WCJ factfinding in mental-injury cases | N/A (Claimant relied on deference under Payes II) | Employer argued legal standards and precedent support reversal | Held: Under Payes II, appellate review limited to whether WCJ’s factual findings are supported by evidence; deference required and findings were supported |
| Whether McLaurin controls to deny benefits | N/A | Employer cited McLaurin to argue robbery is normal where employer trains and prior incidents occurred | Held: McLaurin distinguishable post-Payes II; here WCJ credited different factual picture and reasonably found event abnormal |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc., 568 A.2d 159 (Pa. 1990) (two-part burden: objective evidence of psychiatric injury and proof the injury is not a subjective reaction to normal working conditions)
- Wilson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 669 A.2d 338 (Pa. 1996) (claimant must prove precipitating events are abnormal to recover for psychiatric injury)
- Payes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pa. State Police), 79 A.3d 543 (Pa. 2013) (mental-injury inquiries are highly fact-sensitive; appellate courts must defer to WCJ factual findings and assess abnormality in context of specific employment)
- RAG (Cyprus) Emerald Resources, L.P. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hopton), 912 A.2d 1278 (Pa. 2007) (employers need not provide emotionally sanitized workplaces; appellate review of WCJ factual findings limited)
- McLaurin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (SEPTA), 980 A.2d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (example of finding an incident normal where WCJ credited frequent prior assaults and employer training)