Workers' Compensation Course and Scope of Employment Abandonment
Wilgro Services, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., PICS Case No. 17-0629 (Pa. Commw. June 28, 2017) McCullough, J. (14 pages).
Claimant's decision to jump from the roof of a two-story building at the end of his work day after another service provider removed a ladder was misguided, but it was not so foreign or removed from his usual employment as to constitute an abandonment of his job. The court affirmed the decision granting claimant workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant, a travelling employee, worked for Wilgro Services, Inc. as a mechanic on HVAC systems. When he arrived at work on June 27, 2014, claimant climbed to the roof on a ladder placed there by roofers also working on the building. However, at the end of his work day, claimant looked around and found the roofers' ladder gone and no one else on the roof. According to claimant, he had a cellphone but did not try to call the building owner because whenever he tried the number, he could not reach anyone. He called one employee of KVK-Tech but got no answer. Claimant waited about 30 minutes before he finally jumped off the roof of the two-story building, injuring his feet and back. He never considered calling 9-1-1 or other emergency services. Employer denied claimant's request of workers' compensation benefits, asserting that because claimant deliberately jumped from the roof, his injuries were not work-related. Thereafter, claimant filed a petition seeing compensation for the bilateral heel fractures and back injuries he suffered in the incident. At a hearing on the matter, claimant denied that he deliberately and intentionally jumped from the roof to injure himself. He admitted the decision to jump was not smart but said he never thought he would get hurt. A workers' compensation judge found claimant to be credible and concluded that he was in the course of his employment when he jumped. The WCJ also found that claimant did not intentionally or deliberately attempt to injure himself. While claimant's decision to jump was misguided, it did not bar claimant from receiving benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act's no-fault system. Thus, the WCJ granted claimant's petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed. On appeal, employer argued that the WCJ erred in granting claimant relief because his actions in jumping from the roof were wholly foreign to his employment and sufficient to remove him from the course and scope of his employment under Penn. State Univ. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 15 A.3d 949 (Pa. Commw. 2011). On appeal, all inferences drawn from the evidence shall be taken in favor of the party prevailing before the WCJ, the appellate court said. As a travelling employee, claimant was entitled to the presumption that he was furthering his employer's business when he was injured. Employer failed to rebut the presumption by proving that claimant's actions were so foreign to and removed from his usual employment as to constitute an abandonment therefore, the court concluded. Moreover, this case did not involve a stationary employee acting on a whim or a lark, as in Penn State. While claimant's decision to jump was "not advisable" and perhaps "misguided," the court could not say that it was so unreasonable as to make the action foreign to and removed from claimant's job such that it was an abandonment of the job.