Seeing 'Pipeline Systems' Decision in a Greater Context
Last month, the Commonwealth Court decided the matter of (Pa. Commw Ct. No. 1577 C.D. 2014, Opinion by Judge Colins, filed July 7, 2015). Essentially, the court sustained the workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in affording the claimant compensation for injuries he suffered while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The issue was whether the claimant was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the injury.
August 05, 2015 at 08:00 PM
10 minute read
Last month, the Commonwealth Court decided the matter of Pipeline Systems v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pounds) (Pa. Commw Ct. No. 1577 C.D. 2014, Opinion by Judge Colins, filed July 7, 2015). Essentially, the court sustained the workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board in affording the claimant compensation for injuries he suffered while attempting to assist a fellow employee who fell into a concrete pit. The issue was whether the claimant was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the injury.
When the emergency arose, the claimant was installing a pipeline at a sanitation plant, clearly in the course and scope of his employment. The issue became whether his decision to go render aid to an individual who fell into a pit 30 feet from where he was working took him out of that course and scope. The employer's argument was that the General Assembly could not have intended to provide coverage for employees who render aid but who are not members of a professional or specially trained class of emergency personnel. The court disagreed, finding that an attempt to render aid to another does not, in and of itself, constitute an abandonment of employment. One of the key phrases from the opinion states: “These facts demonstrate that at the time the emergency arose, claimant was actually engaged in the furtherance of employer's business or affairs and was, therefore, within the course and scope of his employment.” Therefore, the court focused on what the claimant was doing at the time of his departure from his normal job, rather than on the departure itself, which greatly benefits injured workers and actually well supported by longstanding caselaw. Also, while not specifically mentioned by the court, the related issue of whether the claimant violated a positive work rule could also have been used to deny the claimant benefits.
The courts have developed two tests to determine whether an injured worker falls outside the course and scope of employment. The operative phase of the first test is whether the claimant was “actually engaged in the furtherance of the business and affairs of the employer.” Moreover, the inquiry in the first test must be given a liberal construction in favor of the injured worker. The second test is merely a premises liability theory and not germane to this discussion.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReal Property Sale Proceeds Must Be Paid First to Unavoided Portion of IRS Tax Lien
7 minute readPeople in the News—Oct. 11, 2024—Messa & Associates, Bochetto & Lentz
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250