Court Opinion

ID: 9371545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 16:09:18.535734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.447346
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary Owens,                             :
                   Petitioner           :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
SJ Retail Services, Inc. (Workers’      :
Compensation Appeal Board),             :   No. 182 C.D. 2022
                    Respondent          :   Submitted: December 30, 2022

BEFORE:     HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
            HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                         FILED: February 16, 2023

            Mary Owens (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the Workers’
Compensation (WC) Appeal Board’s (Board) February 2, 2022 order reversing the
WC Judge’s (WCJ) decision that granted Claimant’s Claim Petition for WC (Claim
Petition) and denied Claimant’s Petition for Penalties (Penalty Petition). Claimant
presents one issue for this Court’s review: whether Claimant abandoned her
employment when she was injured on SJ Retail Services, Inc.’s (Employer) premises
during an argument over matters incident to her employment. After review, this
Court affirms.
            Employer employed Claimant as a cashier at Tiger Mart Exxon, a gas
station/market. On June 26, 2020, near closing time, Claimant was preparing to
leave work when a customer came in and berated her for not wearing a mask.1
Claimant asked the customer to leave, which initiated a heated exchange. When the
customer eventually left the market, Claimant followed the customer to the filling
station area. The customer got into his truck and started to pull away. Claimant,
while reaching for the customer’s truck bed with her right arm, fell and sustained an
injury. Police and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived, and the EMTs
took Claimant to UPMC Mercy Hospital.
              On September 17, 2020, Claimant filed the Claim Petition alleging that
she fractured her right hip and wrist after a customer’s truck struck her on June 26,
2020. On September 29, 2020, Employer filed an Answer opposing all allegations
therein. On February 11, 2021, Claimant filed the Penalty Petition alleging that
Employer violated Section 406.1 of the Pennsylvania WC Act (Act)2 by failing to
pay her WC benefits. The WCJ conducted hearings on October 20 and December
8, 2020, and March 30 and April 20, 2021.
              On May 14, 2021, the WCJ granted the Claim Petition and denied the
Penalty Petition. The WCJ concluded that the injury occurred in the course and
scope of employment because it occurred on Employer’s premises as a result of
Claimant’s employment. Employer appealed to the Board.3 On February 2, 2022,
the Board reversed the WCJ’s decision, concluding that Claimant had abandoned the
course and scope of her employment and her actions constituted something wholly
foreign thereto. Claimant appealed to this Court.4

       1
          Claimant’s supervisor had asked her to wear a mask at work to prevent the spread of the
COVID-19 virus, but her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevented her from doing so.
Employer did not discipline Claimant for not wearing a mask at work.
        2
          Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, added by Section 3 of the Act of February 8,
1972, P.L. 25, No. 12, 77 P.S. § 717.1 (relating to prompt payment of WC benefits).
        3
          Claimant did not challenge the Penalty Petition’s denial to the Board.
        4
          “[This Court’s] review determines whether there has been a violation of constitutional
rights, whether errors of law have been committed, whether [B]oard procedures were violated, or
whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Bryn Mawr
                                               2
             Initially,

             Section 301(c)(1) of the Act[5] provides that an injury must
             occur in the course and scope of employment and be
             causally related thereto in order for the injury to be
             compensable. “An activity that does not further the affairs
             of the employer will take the employee out of the course
             and scope of employment and serve as a basis for denial
             of the claim by the WCJ.” Penn State [Univ. v. Workers’
             Comp. Appeal Bd. (Smith)], 15 A.3d [949,] 954 [(Pa.
             Cmwlth. 2011)]. However, “[t]he operative phrase
             ‘actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or
             affairs of the employer,’ which is usually expressed as ‘in
             the course of employment,’ must be given a liberal
             construction.” Lewis [v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
             (Andy Frain Servs., Inc.)], 29 A.3d [851,] 862 [(Pa.
             Cmwlth. 2011)] (quoting [Se.] [Pa.] Transp[.] Auth[.] v.
             Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (McDowell), 730 A.2d 562,
             564 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). As recently emphasized by this
             Court, “‘[a]n employe is entitled to compensation for
             every injury received on the premises of h[er] employer
             during the hours of employment . . . so long as there is
             nothing to show that [s]he had abandoned the course
             of h[er] employment or was engaged in something
             wholly foreign thereto.’” Trigon Holdings, Inc. v.
             Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Griffith), 74 A.3d 359, 362
             (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Henry v. Lit Brothers, 165
             A.2d 406, 409 ([Pa. Super.] 1960)) (emphasis in original).
             Whether an employee is acting in the course of his or her
             employment at the time of an injury is a question of law,
             which must be based on the WCJ’s findings of fact.

Wetzel v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Parkway Serv. Station), 92 A.3d 130, 136
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (footnote omitted; underline emphasis added).
             Claimant argues that the customer’s payment for services and ensuing
argument over the face mask were all incident to and in furtherance of Employer’s
business.   Thus, Claimant contends that she was acting in the course of her

Landscaping Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cruz-Tenorio), 219 A.3d 1244, 1252 n.5 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019).
      5
        77 P.S. § 411(1).
                                           3
employment at the time of her injury. Employer rejoins that the incident, which was
captured on the store’s surveillance video (Video), clearly established that Claimant
pursued the customer to the filling station solely to continue their heated exchange,
rather than for any purpose related to Employer’s business.
             “[T]he WCJ is the ultimate fact[-]finder and is empowered to determine
witness credibility and evidentiary weight. The WCJ, therefore, is free to accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness[.]” Sadler v. Phila. Coca-
Cola (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 269 A.3d 690, 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (quoting
Griffiths v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Red Lobster), 760 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2000)).
             Here, the WCJ found as a fact:

             The [V]ideo depicts a normal exchange between the
             customer and [] Claimant at 9:09 p.m. on June 26, 2020.
             The customer makes a purchase and [] Claimant puts the
             items in a bag and gives the customer change. At that
             point [] Claimant and the customer have a
             “discussion[.]”[] It is noted that the customer was wearing
             a mask but [] Claimant was not. There was a Plexiglass
             partition between [] Claimant and the customer. About
             9:11 p.m. the customer leaves and he makes a comment as
             he is leaving. Claimant becomes irate and makes a number
             of inappropriate gestures to the customer through the store
             window. The gestures include hand gestures and a gesture
             that would be suggestive that [] Claimant was telling the
             customer to kiss her backside. [] Claimant also grabs her
             crotch.
             The customer is shown pointing at something but it is
             unclear what he is pointing at [sic]. At approximately 9:12
             p.m. [] Claimant is at the door of the store and then goes
             into the lot. The customer is seen getting into his truck.
             The truck door is open and [] Claimant approaches at a
             brisk pace. The door is closed and the customer starts
             driving away. Before [] Claimant gets to the vehicle []
             Claimant tries to grab the truck bed and swing but misses
             and falls down. It does not appear, based upon the
             [Video], that the customer’s truck tire ran over the
                                         4
            Claimant’s foot. Claimant is then depicted lying in the
            parking lot while the customer drives away in his truck.
            The [V]ideo was viewed at the October 20, 2020, hearing
            and described for the record.

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 64a; WCJ Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 2.
            The WCJ concluded that the genesis of Claimant’s injury occurred as a
result of her employment and the injury occurred on Employer’s premises. See R.R.
at 67a; Conclusion of Law No. 3. Therefore, in order to deny the Claim Petition, the
WCJ’s findings had to support the conclusion that Claimant abandoned her
employment or was engaged in an activity wholly foreign thereto. See Wetzel.
            The WCJ found as a fact:

            [] Claimant and a customer engaged in a heated exchange
            ostensibly over [] Claimant’s failure to wear a face mask.
            The cashier area was protected by Plexiglass.
            Nevertheless, the customer, after an innocuous exchange,
            apparently chastised [] Claimant for her failure to wear a
            mask and this resulted in an escalation of tensions between
            the customer and [] Claimant. This resulted in [] Claimant
            leaving her station and following the customer into the
            filling station area. The customer got into his vehicle and
            started to pull away and [] Claimant, while reaching for
            the truck bed with her right arm, was caused to fall and
            sustain [an] injury.

R.R. at 66a; FOF No. 10.
            Based on this Court’s review, the WCJ’s factual findings do not support
the conclusion that Claimant’s cashier duties included following the customer who
patronized Employer’s business to the filling station area and attempting to hold on
to his vehicle as he drove away. Moreover, the WCJ’s factual findings establish that
Claimant was furthering her own interests when she was injured. As the customer
left the market, he made a comment which resulted in Claimant becoming irate and
making a number of inappropriate gestures to him through the store window. The
customer was actually pulling away when Claimant reached for the truck bed and

                                         5
fell and injured herself. Claimant’s pursuit of the customer’s truck was so far
removed from her cashier duties that it constitutes abandonment of “the course of
h[er] employment or . . . engag[ing] in something wholly foreign thereto.” Wetzel,
92 A.3d at 137 (quoting Trigon Holdings, 74 A.3d at 362 (emphasis omitted)).
Because Claimant had clearly abandoned her employment at the time her injury
occurred, the WCJ erred by concluding otherwise. Accordingly, the Board properly
reversed the WCJ’s decision.
            For all of the above reasons, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                        6
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary Owens,                             :
                   Petitioner           :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
SJ Retail Services, Inc. (Workers’      :
Compensation Appeal Board),             :   No. 182 C.D. 2022
                    Respondent          :

                                     ORDER

            AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2023, the Workers’
Compensation Appeal Board’s February 2, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge