Opinion ID: 2112830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Physical Causation v. Mental Causation

Text: We have never before defied the requirements of the Act and ignored causation and work-relatedness to find that the injury and resulting disability are compensable. This Court has indicated that the term injury is to be interpreted according to its common and approved usage. Pawlosky v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 514 Pa. 450, 525 A.2d 1204, 1209 (1987). In that case, the Court noted the broad definition of injury as set forth in Creighan v. Firemen's Relief & Pension Fund Board, 397 Pa. 419, 155 A.2d 844 (1959). [I]n common speech the word `injury,' as applied to personal injury to a human being, includes whatever lesion or change in any part of the system produces harm or pain, or a lessened facility of the natural use of any bodily activity or capability. Id. at 847 (citation omitted). The term injury  is more commonly used to express ... the effect on the recipient in the way of hurt or damage, and we do not doubt at this day its common and approved usage extends to and includes any hurtful or damaging effect which may be suffered by anyone.  Id. at 847 (emphasis in original and supplied). Thus, the clear focus of the definition of the term injury is on the effect, i.e., the disorder or symptoms suffered by the claimant, in this case, a heart attack. However, work-related injuries do not occur in a vacuum. In order to meet the requirements of the Act, the injury must be caused by the condition of the premises or the operation of the employer's business, i.e., the working conditions. We have identified the types of stimuli that produce various classes of work injuries. There are four categories of injuries: (1) physical stimulus causing physical injury (physical/physical); (2) psychological stimulus causing physical injury (mental/physical); (3) physical stimulus causing psychic injury (physical/mental); and (4) psychological stimulus causing psychic injury (mental/mental). The causative agent for the injury must reside within the employment scenario. In the instant matter, Claimant's complete description of his physical injury depicts it as a minor heart attack/aggravation of existing heart condition. He alleges that the causative element occurred during a confrontation with a personnel supervisor at [Claimant's] place of employment. The causative element was a mental one, not a physical one, so we are faced with the mental/physical classification. Accordingly, I believe that the facts of this case must be viewed within the parameters of a mental insult causing a physical injury.