Court Opinion

ID: 9711871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:40:50.752913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.927765
License: Public Domain

SILVESTRI, Senior Judge,
dissenting.
Scranton contends that the referee and Board erred in granting benefits because there is insufficient evidence of record to establish that Hart suffered a psychic injury as a result of exposure to “abnormal working conditions.” Because I agree with this contention, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s award of the benefits and conclusion that the “circumstances in the present case ... clearly support the Referee’s finding that ‘abnormal working conditions’ exist due to the fact that his work performance became unusually stressful.”
The majority indicates “[i]t is quite clear that the work performance required of Hart was extremely difficult and stressful, but for his position, this type of stress was normal.” (Majority opinion, p. 9.) I wholeheartedly agree that the stress Hart was under was normal for a person in the position of a detective responsible for numerous police investigations. However, the majority then gives an overly detailed description of what Hart did, full of picturesque but subjective phrases, self-serving statements made by Hart’s family, and equivocal, vague testimony given by the Captain of Detectives and Hart’s supervisor upon which they base their decision to affirm the award of benefits. The majority’s lengthy recitation evinces no evidence to support the critical determination that the stress Hart was allegedly under was abnormal for a person in his position.
Moreover, the majority does not distinguish between profit-employers and a public-employer, such as a municipality, *498who hires law enforcement officers to preserve the peace and order of the community. The matters which such law enforcement officers confront in the performance of their law enforcement duties are not dependent upon conditions created by the municipality, but upon the extent and nature of the conduct of those members of the public who engage in violations of the law, from simple assault to pre-meditated murder. Criminal conduct by members of the public is unpredictable and without prior notice as to the manner, nature, time, place and victim of such conduct, either to the municipality or to the law enforcement officers.
The normal working environment of a law enforcement officer employed by a municipality is derived from and dependent upon the kind of law violations by the public. Normal working conditions for one employed in law enforcement involve the totality of the responsibilities undertaken by Hart; i.e., investigation, identification, apprehension, indictment, trial and conviction of persons engaging in criminal conduct. Even acknowledging that Hart’s position was stressful, none of the facts of this case, such as the attempt to apprehend a serial killer, responsibility for photographs of crime scenes, polygraph examinations, criminal investigation, indicate working conditions that are abnormal for someone in the position of Hart.1
This Court has already established that a claimant’s subjective reaction to normal working conditions is not a compensable injury under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act., Thomas v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 55 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 449, 456, 423 A.2d 784, 788 (1980). As Judge Doyle stated in Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (DeMay), 87 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 558, 487 A.2d 1053 (1985):
*499By holding that a high stress work environment is, in and of itself, a sufficient work related abnormality, the majority creates a dangerous precedent. Many types of jobs are, by their very nature, high stress. Such occupations as ... a police officer, for example, may well be viewed as high stress; but for these particular positions high stress is normal.
The majority’s benevolent award of benefits to a person in the circumstances of Hart will have far-reaching effects upon workmen’s compensation liability of public employers whose duties are, inter alia, to apprehend and prosecute criminals and on such employer’s ability to defend such claims. Accordingly, I would reverse the award of benefits to Hart, whose delineation of duties by the majority, while an excellent “job description” for a law enforcement officer in the Scranton Police Department’s Detective Bureau, does not constitute “abnormal working conditions.”.

. Significantly, Frank Roche, the Captain of Detectives and Hart’s supervisor, in testifying, offered no evidence that either he or any other member of the Department’s Detective Bureau suffered adversely from the work being performed by the Department personnel; neither was any such evidence adduced from any other source.