Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
621 Pa. 564
Pa.2013Background
- Philip Payes, a Pennsylvania State Trooper, struck and killed a mentally ill woman who ran into his patrol car on Interstate 81 during a pre-shift drive on Nov. 29, 2006; the event was recorded by his dash camera.
- Payes performed resuscitation amid oncoming traffic, transported for blood-exposure testing, returned briefly to office duties, but stopped work claiming PTSD and has not returned since Jan. 5, 2007.
- He filed a claim for workers’ compensation for PTSD (mental-mental injury); employer filed denials but accepted medical expense responsibility for blood exposure.
- At hearing, WCJ found Payes credible, accepted his experts’ PTSD diagnosis, and found the incident to be an unusual, singular work event constituting an "abnormal working condition," awarding benefits.
- WCAB and Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that traumatic events like accidents and death are within the normal risks of police work and thus not "abnormal." The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the WCJ decision.
Issues
| Issue | Payes' Argument | State Police's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payes’ PTSD arose from an "abnormal working condition" making a mental-mental claim compensable | The event was a singular, extraordinary incident (possible suicide-by-cop) distinct from routine police exposures; WCJ found it objectively unusual | Police work routinely involves traumatic visuals, accidents, fatalities and suicides; event falls within normal risks of the job | Court held WCJ’s factual finding that the incident was an extraordinarily unusual single event was supported by substantial evidence and, as a matter of law, constituted an abnormal working condition; reinstated WCJ award |
| Standard of review for abnormal working conditions | Defer to WCJ factual findings; apply legal standard to those facts | Abnormal-working-condition determination is a legal question reviewable de novo | Court treated the inquiry as fact-sensitive: review factual findings for substantial evidence and then apply legal standard; reversed Commonwealth Court for failing to accept WCJ facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Ketchum, Inc., 568 A.2d 159 (Pa. 1990) (established the "abnormal working conditions" requirement for compensable psychic injuries)
- Wilson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Aluminum Co. of Am.), 669 A.2d 338 (Pa. 1996) (psychic injury inquiries are highly fact-sensitive and must consider specific employment)
- Panyko v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Airways), 888 A.2d 724 (Pa. 2005) (classification of mental injuries and review standards)
- RAG (Cyprus) Emerald Resources, L.P. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hopton), 912 A.2d 1278 (Pa. 2007) (two-step review: defer to WCJ factual findings unless arbitrary/capricious, then decide legal abnormality)
- Davis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Swarthmore Borough), 751 A.2d 168 (Pa. 2000) (reaffirming need to distinguish subjective reactions to normal conditions from compensable injuries)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Logan, 810 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2002) (police officer threats that objectively evidence abnormal working conditions can be compensable)
- Brasten II (City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), 728 A.2d 938 (Pa. 1999) (divided Court on police officer post-shooting publicity; limits on causal nexus to employment)
- Hershey Chocolate Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Lasher), 682 A.2d 1257 (Pa. 1996) (even identified employment events must still be shown abnormal to recover)