Penn State University v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 72
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Jeffrey Smith injured June 7, 2007 while on Employer’s premises during a lunch break.
- Injury occurred when Claimant intentionally jumped down a flight of stairs en route to Bruno’s on campus.
- Claimant was performing housekeeping duties earlier and worked in the Housing Department in addition to his cooking job.
- Employer argued the injury occurred outside the course and scope of employment and that horseplay violated a positive work order.
- WCJ found injury within course and scope; Board affirmed; Employer sought review in Commonwealth Court.
- Court reversed, concluding the injury was not in the course and scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury arose in the course of employment | Smith contends injury occurred during lunch on employer premises while performing work-related activities. | Penn State contends jumping for personal whim during lunch was outside the course of employment and constitutes horseplay. | Not in course; reversed. |
| Whether the horseplay defense precludes entitlement | Smith argues no deliberate violation of a work rule; action was not outside employment purposes. | Penn State maintains the act was horseplay and outside the scope of employment. | Defense moot since not in course; benefits not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Airways v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (injury may occur on premises while engaged in employer’s business or related activities)
- Pinn v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Hemlock Girl Scout Council), 754 A.2d 40 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (employer encouragement and benefit to business affect course-of-employment analysis)
- Cozza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 383 A.2d 1325 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983) (personal comfort breaks can be in the course of employment)
- Baby's Room v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Stairs), 860 A.2d 200 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (inconsequential departure may still qualify)
- Kmart Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 561 Pa. 111 (2000) (cafeteria on premises not dispositive to course-of-employment fact pattern)
- Savani v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 977 A.2d 585 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (standard for determining course-of-employment causal relation)
- Pesta v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (Wise Foods), 1221 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (departure from work to attend to personal needs generally not outside course)
- Tredyffrin-Easttown School District v. Breyer, 408 A.2d 1194 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1979) (annual tradition or program involvement may support course-of-employment finding)
- Mann v. City of Philadelphia, 563 A.2d 1284 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1989) (activity necessary to maintain job skills may sustain benefits)