Court Opinion

ID: 9759019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:00:22.200416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:58.174139
License: Public Domain

*443Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Crumlish, Jr.:
I concur in that part of the majority’s opinion which adopts the chain-of-causation test to determine if a suicide is compensable under Section 301(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
However, I disagree with the majority’s application of the chain-of-causation test to McCoys fatal claim petition.
Under Klein, McCoy is entitled to benefits if his suicide is the result of a work-related injury arising from his employment duties, as distinguished from an injury occurring from the loss of an ownership interest. The chain-of-causation test provides compensation to a decedent’s claimant if the death was caused by despair which developed from employment functions. Kahle.
The record discloses that McCoy first worked for his fathers catering business for five years after he was married. McCoy then pursued an auto-racing career, however, he returned to the business when his father became ill. After his lather’s death, McCoy and a family friend shared the responsibility of operating the business, while McCoy’s mother also remained active.1 McCoy handled the sales and management aspects, while his friend purchased and prepared the foods.
The referee, although denying benefits under the Sponatski test, found that McCoy was frequently agitated and upset by small business problems which otherwise would have been easily solved. (Finding of Fact No. 15.) McCoy was concerned about the business problems as they related to not only his wife and his children but also his mother for whom the business was *444the sole source of income. (No. 16.) A few days prior to McCoys death, the business developed problems with one of the company’s largest customers, causing him to become very upset. (No. 17.) Moreover, the threat of a key employee to quit, unless given ownership rights, and threats by suppliers to stop shipments also upset McCoy. (Nos. 18, 19.) Finally, the referee found, “Dr. Hempsey further concluded, and the Referee believes that the stress factor was a direct result of the financial problems of the business and resulted from the business going downhill.” (No. 33.)
These findings indicate that McCoy suffered from stress arising from his employment duties. His perceived and, in fact, actual failure to manage the business properly resulted in financial difficulty for his family. The majority, I believe, wrongly focuses on this result rather than the cause of the stress.
The distinction between stress occurring from employment duties and from ownership interest in the small family-operated business area is difficult to delineate. It is certainly arguable that the referee’s findings indicate that McCoy’s mental stress stemmed from these two factors. However, I believe that the findings and record support the conclusion that McCoy’s stress arose from his failure as a manager, which naturally affected his ability to support his family.
I would reverse the Board decision and remand for computation of benefits.

 When asked on cross-examination, who was the owner of McCoy Catering, Ritchie Webb, McCoys friend, testified that the senior Mrs. McCoy was the owner. N.T., 3/25/80, p. 51.