Simko v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
101 A.3d 1239
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant (Simko), a strand operator with 15 years' service, filed a claim petition for a brain injury sustained in an auto accident while commuting to work on September 13, 2011.
- Employer holds mandatory monthly safety meetings (scheduled and posted on weekly schedules; employees must arrive early and are paid) and infrequent stand-down meetings (SDMs) for serious incidents, usually handled separately and attended by senior managers.
- For the week of September 11, 2011, Employer scheduled SDMs; for C crew (Claimant’s crew) the SPL incorporated SDM content into the already-scheduled monthly safety meeting on Sept. 13 at 1:30 p.m.
- WCJ found Claimant was en route to an SDM and thus within the course and scope of employment under the "special mission" exception and awarded benefits; parties suspended a protective appeal pending final merits.
- WCAB reversed the WCJ, concluding substantial evidence did not support the finding that Claimant was in the course and scope when injured; Claimant petitioned for review and the court affirmed the WCAB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special mission exception to the coming-and-going rule applied | Claimant: traveling to a SDM was a special mission because Employer replaced the monthly meeting with a more-mandatory SDM | Employer: meeting was the routine monthly safety meeting (with SDM content added); attendance was part of regular duties, not a special mission | Not a special mission; attendance was part of regular duties |
| Whether "special circumstances" (furthering employer's business) applied | Claimant: commuting early to a workplace safety meeting furthered Employer’s safety interests and thus was compensable | Employer: merely commuting to perform regular duties is not a special circumstance despite benefitting Employer | No special circumstances; attending required regular duty, not an extraordinary furtherance |
| Whether WCAB improperly reweighed credibility findings of the WCJ | Claimant: WCAB reversed by reweighing credibility determinations | Employer: WCAB limited its review to whether testimony supported course-and-scope finding and did not improperly reweigh credibility | WCAB did not improperly reweigh; it noted disputed credibility points were irrelevant to course-and-scope conclusion |
| Whether remand was needed for medical recovery findings | Claimant: requested remand to address whether he fully recovered | Employer: WCAB did not reach merits because of course-and-scope ruling | No remand; affirmation of WCAB's jurisdictional/course-and-scope decision moots further inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Village Auto Body v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Eggert), 827 A.2d 570 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (sets out coming-and-going rule exceptions)
- Action, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Talerico), 540 A.2d 1377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (attending meetings as regular duty is not a special mission)
- Mackey v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Maxim Healthcare Services), 989 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (employer’s general interest in employees coming to work is not a ‘‘special circumstance’’)
- Lewis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Andy Frain Services, Inc.), 29 A.3d 851 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (liberal construction of "furtherance of the business" but claimant must show benefit and convenience beyond ordinary commute)
- Wetzel v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Parkway Service Station), 92 A.3d 130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (distinguishable: employee injured on premises during shift was engaged in furtherance of employer’s business)