Starr Aviation v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Colquitt)
155 A.3d 1156
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Claimant worked as a ramp agent lead for Starr Aviation at Pittsburgh International Airport.
- On Sept. 2, 2014, during a 2:00 p.m.–11:00 p.m. shift, Claimant left her post to meet her mother and retrieve feminine products after forgetting her wallet.
- Claimant’s injury occurred when the tug she was driving flipped, resulting in amputation above the ankle.
- Employer denied the claim as outside the course of employment, prompting a WCJ hearing and a Board appeal.
- WCJ found Claimant’s departure was for personal comfort, approved by the supervisor, and within the course of employment under the personal comfort doctrine.
- Board affirmed the WCJ’s award of benefits to Claimant, including total disability, and Employer sought review in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the personal comfort doctrine applies. | Colquitt (Claimant) within course of employment. | Starr Aviation argues the departure was not a minor, temporary disruption. | Yes; the departure fit within the personal comfort doctrine. |
| Whether Claimant was injured on Employer’s premises. | Claimant remained in furtherance of Employer’s business. | Premises location should control; injury outside premises possible. | Inapplicable to deny compensation; injury sustains under doctrine. |
| Whether the WCJ/Board properly discounted Employer witnesses. | Credibility findings support Claimant’s version. | Witness testimony could negate necessity of meeting mother. | WCJ’s credibility rulings upheld; testimony did not rebut personal comfort analysis. |
| Waiver of specific loss benefits argument. | The Board’s award should be affirmed; issue not raised on appeal. | Specific loss benefits should be considered; issue preserved. | Issue waived; Board affirmed; no reversible error on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kmart Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Fitzsimmons), 748 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000) (test for course of employment; presence not required on premises in first test)
- Marazas v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Vitas Healthcare Corp.), 97 A.3d 854 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (second test for course where premises and injury relate to employer’s business)
- US Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (personal comfort doctrine; inconsequential departures within regular hours)
- Montgomery Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Armstrong), 793 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (bathroom break within course of employment; personal comfort rationale)
- Trigon Holdings, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Griffith), 74 A.3d 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (issue of course of employment tied to WCJ findings)
- Rox Coal Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Snizaski), 768 A.2d 384 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (no fault; negligence not a defense in WC matters)