Pipeline Systems, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
120 A.3d 397
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Claimant, an employee of Pipeline Systems, was working on a Borough Plant pipeline installation when he heard a call for help from a concrete pit about 30 feet away.
- Claimant and coworkers descended into the pit to assist a Borough Plant employee who had fallen; Claimant found the man dead, attempted to climb out, was overcome by methane gas, lost consciousness and fell, suffering multiple injuries.
- Employer initially paid temporary compensation but denied coverage and contested that the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment; Claimant filed a Claim Petition for injuries to left leg, knee, foot, ribs, back and lungs.
- The WCJ found Claimant credible and concluded the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment; the Board affirmed; Employer appealed to this Court.
- Central legal question: whether 77 P.S. § 1031(a)(10) (added 2003) — which preserves employee status for employees who, while in the course and scope of employment, go to the aid of a person rendering emergency care, first aid or rescue — brought Claimant’s rescue attempt within the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s injuries occurred in the course and scope of employment | Claimant: he was on-duty and actively furthering employer’s business when the emergency arose and thus §601(a)(10)(ii) applies | Employer: §601(a)(10) should be limited to volunteer/specially trained emergency personnel; a Good Samaritan act unrelated to job duties does not remain within course of employment | Held: §601(a)(10) applies to any employee who, while otherwise in the course and scope of employment, goes to the aid of a person by rendering emergency care or rescue; Claimant was within course and scope when injured |
| Whether rendering aid automatically converts a non-work act into compensable employment activity | Claimant: statute preserves employee status for specified rescue/aid acts without requiring special training or status | Employer: allowing coverage for any employee who aids another (without duty) conflicts with Kmart and improperly extends employer liability | Held: statute does not rely on ‘‘tangential goodwill’’; it requires the employee to be within course and scope at the time the emergency arises and to perform a specified category of aid — motivation or relationship to victim irrelevant |
| Proper scope of §601(a) subsections relative to other coverage provisions | Claimant: §601(a)(10) complements subsections (1)-(9) by protecting employees who render aid even if aid is not a regular job duty | Employer: §601(a)(10) would be absurdly broad if not limited to trained responders | Held: legislative text and structure show subsection (10) was intentionally drafted to cover employees (no special training required) who, while otherwise in employment, go to the aid of a person as specified |
| Standard for deciding whether a temporary departure to render aid removes employee from employment course | Claimant: temporary departures to render aid are analogous to permissible temporary departures (comfort breaks) and do not remove coverage | Employer: attempted rescue was a pronounced departure from duties analogous to Kmart result | Held: injuries occurring during a brief, work-related presence (here, 30 ft away while performing job) that result from rendering aid can remain compensable under the two established tests for course of employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kmart Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 748 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000) (employees off-duty rendering aid did not meet course-of-employment tests; Court rejected coverage based on tangential goodwill)
- Penn State Univ. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Smith), 15 A.3d 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (framework for analyzing whether injury arose in course of employment)
- Trigon Holdings, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Griffith), 74 A.3d 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (pronounced departures from work duties are not compensable)
- Ginther v. J.P. Graham Transfer Co., 33 A.2d 923 (Pa. 1943) (employer liability under the Act is defined by statutory terms)