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.
