Pennsylvania State University v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 245
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Penn State and PMA Insurance petition review of WCAB ruling awarding fatal claim benefits to Sandra Rabin.
- Decedent Dr. Jack Rabin died November 13, 2006, allegedly from work-related injuries sustained October 20, 2006.
- Claimant’s evidence included Waehhaus’s testimony and Dr. Acri’s deposition; Employer offered Dr. Manaker’s deposition.
- WCJ found Decedent was engaged in Penn State business at the October 20, 2006 off-campus meeting that led to the injury.
- WCJ concluded the death was caused by injuries from the fall; WCAB affirmed; Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- Court affirms, holding the record supports that the injury occurred in the course of employment and substantially contributed to death; Dr. Acri’s testimony suffices to prove causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury occurred in the course of employment | RabIn argues injury occurred while furthering Penn State’s business | Penn State contends Decedent was off-premises and not in the course of employment | Yes, injury occurred in course of employment. |
| Whether work-related injury substantially contributed to Decedent’s death | Acri testified fall contributed to death via multi-system failure | Acri’s testimony was equivocal on causation | Yes, substantial contribution established. |
| Whether medical testimony suffices to prove causation without explicit language | Acri’s testimony supported valid inference of causation | Chicoine requires explicit terms | Testimony sufficient to imply substantial contributing factor. |
| Whether the lunch/brief off-premises activity was within course of employment | Record shows purposeful, work-related discussion continued during lunch | Generally off-premises lunch breaks not in course of employment | Deviation for business purpose during meeting permitted under law. |
| Whether WCJ/WCAB findings are supported by substantial evidence | Findings credited Dr. Acri and Waehhaus; supported by objective tests | Employer disputes some factual inferences | Yes, supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (course-of-employment analysis; liberal construction for remedial Act)
- Speight v. Burens, 538 A.2d 542 (Pa.Super. 1988) (lunch discussion can be in course of employment when primarily business-related)
- Carretti v. Schwanger, 589 A.2d 1167 (Pa.Super. 1991) (off-premises injury exceptions to lunch break rule)
- Tatrai v. Presbyterian University Hospital, 439 A.2d 1162 (1982) (exception to off-premises injury rule in special circumstances)
- Pokita v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (U.S.Air), 639 A.2d 1310 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (work-related injury as substantial contributing factor standard)
- Chicoine v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Transit Management Services), 633 A.2d 658 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (causation testimony need not use magic words)