Court Opinion

ID: 9692095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:41:14.18049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:31.071015
License: Public Domain

FRIEDMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I would conclude from the findings of the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) that Molly D’Errico’s (Claimant) psychiatric injury is the result of abnormal working conditions. Thus, I would reverse the order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) and would award Claimant benefits.
Claimant worked as a personal aide to Judge Lillian Podgorski of the Philadelphia Traffic Court. The majority holds that the psychiatric injury suffered by Claimant while working in that position is the result of Claimant’s subjective reaction to normal working conditions.1 The ma*167jority explains that “Judge Podgorski’s practices of securing her door, regulating the visitors and protecting documents from casual view [are] not only usual but indeed necessary in the context of the specific employment.” (Majority op. at 166.) The majority further explains that Judge Pod-gorski’s other behavior “may be uncivil and perhaps excessive,” but incivility does not constitute an abnormal working condition under Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Guaracino), 544 Pa. 203, 675 A.2d 1213 (1996). (Majority op. at 166.)
I agree with the majority that some of Judge Podgorski’s work rules are reasonable.2 However, I do not agree that Judge Podgorski’s other behavior can be adequately characterized as merely “uncivil.” A person who is “uncivil” is lacking in courtesy,3 but Judge Podgorski did not just lack courtesy in her dealings with Claimant. In my opinion, Judge Podgor-ski’s peculiarities and quirks went beyond incivility and rose to the level of abnormality.
Judge Podgorski threw things at Claimant. Judge Podgorski directed Claimant to do all the cleaning in the office and in the judge’s bathroom when a cleaning woman was available to do it. Judge Pod-gorski suspected, for no apparent reason, that the cleaning woman, the repairmen and other outside persons were spies. Judge Podgorski kept an “enemy list” and strictly prohibited Claimant from speaking to persons on the list. Judge Podgorski would not allow Claimant to send cards to persons on her “enemy list” and specifically directed that Claimant not send a get well card to a former traffic court employee. Judge Podgorski presented Claimant with a list of auto license numbers and directed Claimant to “run the tags” because she believed, for no apparent reason, that she was being followed. Judge Pod-gorski had Claimant transfer the judge’s personal and business phone calls to Claimant’s home residence because the judge believed, for no apparent reason, that the work phones were tapped. Judge Podgorski sent a note to Claimant and her husband indicating that the cost of kosher food was being passed on to consumers. The note stated: “Please burn this paper in an ashtray in your sink, then put the charred remains in your garbage disposal. Please be careful not to talk on the phone about this, you never know who is listening. When you tell people, please don’t say where it came from.” (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 9(1).) Finally, Judge Podgorski shredded Claimant’s return to work letter from her doctor.
Unlike the majority, I do not consider any of this to be normal behavior for a judge,4 or for any employer. Indeed, because judges are viewed as possessing qualities demonstrating reasoned behavior and as worthy of the highest respect, I believe it is appropriate to hold them to a higher standard than other employers. By failing to live up to a standard that a worker would expect from any employer, much less approach the standard expected from someone in her position, I believe that Judge Podgorski created an abnormal working environment for Claimant.
As indicated above, the majority concludes otherwise based on Philadelphia *168Newspapers. However, the majority has omitted the final sentence of its quotation from that case, which states: “Where, as here, the evidence demonstrates that the offensive behavior complained of is an isolated incident, we must conclude-that an abnormal working condition has not been established.” Id. at 215, 675 A.2d at 1219 (emphasis added). In other words, incivility does not constitute, an abnormal working condition where it is an isolated incident. Here, however, we are not dealing with an isolated incident. Therefore, based on Philadelphia Newspapers, Claimant has established that her psychiatric injury was the result of abnormal working conditions.
Accordingly, I would reverse.5

. To establish compensability for psychiatric injuries which are unaccompanied by physical trauma, a claimant must prove that (1) she suffered a psychiatric injury (2) which was causally related to her employment (3) and was more than a mere subjective reaction to normal working conditions (4) for that kind of job. Antus v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Sawhill Tubular Division, Cyclops Industries, Inc.), 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 576, 625 *167A.2d 760, 764 (1993), aff'd, 536 Pa. 267, 639 A.2d 20 (1994).

. The rules imposed pertaining to socializing with co-workers during working hours, requiring the office door to be locked and being discrete about documents are certainly within the realm of acceptable and reasonable working conditions for judicial employees.

. See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1285 (10 th ed.1997).

.Given the reality that judges are bound to make decisions that will leave at least one litigant unhappy, I realize that it is necessary for judges to be concerned about security. However, Judge Podgorski’s behavior is highly unusual even for an employer who has a heightened need for security. Certainly, any employee who has been subjected to such conduct on a regular basis over several years is likely to develop mental health problems.

. Because my holding differs from that of the majority, I would address whether Claimant was entitled to counsel fees for an unreasonable contest. Here, because Employer presented the testimony of Judge Podgorski to challenge the credibility of Claimant's testimony regarding her working conditions, I would conclude that Employer established a reasonable basis for its contest and that Claimant is not entitled to an award of attorney fees. . Ball Incon Glass Packaging v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Lentz), 682 A.2d 85 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (holding that an issue of credibility is a legitimate and reasonable subject of inquiry and challenge).