Wetzel v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
92 A.3d 130
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Decedent worked as a management employee for Employer; he was on Employer’s premises November 28, 2009, before his shift, to address a cash-register issue and stock the cooler.
- Decedent was struck by a vehicle on November 28, 2009 on Employer’s premises, sustaining a work-related traumatic brain injury; he died April 2, 2010.
- Decedent’s death prompted a Modification and Review petition for burial and medical expenses; Employer denied death causally related to employment.
- The WCJ found Decedent did not violate a positive work rule by carrying a gun and that he was furthering Employer’s business by being on site to fix the cash register, stock the cooler, and guard employees/customers.
- The Board reversed, holding that Decedent abandoned his employment by pursuing the thief, thus removing him from the course and scope of employment; the WCJ’s findings were not disturbed except on abandonment grounds.
- This Court reverses, holding Decedent did not abandon the course of employment and was acting within the scope of his job when injured while trying to stop the thief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Decedent abandoned employment by pursuing the thief. | Wetzel argues Decedent remained in the course of employment and was acting to further Employer’s interests. | Employer contends Decedent’s pursuit was a vigilante act far removed from his duties, constituting abandonment. | Yes, but reversed: abandonment not proven; Decedent remained within course of employment. |
| Whether carrying a gun violated a positive work rule and affected coverage. | There was no credible rule prohibiting carrying a gun; past practice allowed it. | Employer had disciplined him not to be a hero; the rule prohibited involvement in robbery prevention. | Not dispositive to deny coverage; gun policy issue did not defeat course-of-employment finding. |
| Whether Decedent was acting in the course and scope of employment when struck by the thief’s vehicle. | On premises and performing job duties, Decedent was furthering business at the time. | Pursuit of the thief removed him from employment duties. | Yes, Decedent remained within course of employment; Board erred by finding abandonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trigon Holdings, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Griffith), 74 A.3d 359 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (employer-employee acts at work premises while employed do not imply abandonment unless wholly foreign to duties)
- Stevens v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 124 Pa.Cmwlth. 486, 556 A.2d 522 (Pa.Cmwlth.1989) (traveling employee abandonment when confronting a stranger)
- Baby’s Room v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Stairs), 860 A.2d 200 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (innocent and inconsequential departure not abandonment)
- Penn State University v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 15 A.3d 949 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (premeditated, high-risk actions can remove from course and scope)
- Rite Care Resources v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 623 A.2d 917 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993) (liberal construction of remedial Act; claimant bears burden of proof)
- Lewis v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 29 A.3d 851 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (broader course-of-employment standard; liberally construed)
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (McDowell), 730 A.2d 562 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (course of employment must include activities that further employer’s affairs)