Opinion
Argued September 28, 1978
February 6, 1979.
Workmen's compensation — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Violation of constitutional rights — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Course of employment — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736 — Premises — Fist fight.
1. In a workmen's compensation case review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. [293-4]
2. An injury to be compensable under The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736, must have arisen in the course of employment which requires that the employe must have been at the time in the furtherance of his employer's business or, while on the employer's premises as required, sustained an injury because of the condition of the premises or operations thereon. [294]
3. An employe injured in a fist fight on the public sidewalk after working hours while on her way home is properly found not to have been injured in the course of employment and is properly denied workmen's compensation benefits. [294-5]
Argued September 28, 1978, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., DiSALLE and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1893 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Rita Aglira v. Lit Brothers Company, No. A-72542.
Petition with the Department of Labor and Industry for disability benefits and medical expenses. Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Dismissal affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Arthur J. Matusow, for petitioner.
Joseph J. Murphy, with him, of counsel, Murphy, Murphy Murphy, for respondent.
Rita Aglira (Appellant), a checker at Lit Brothers Department Store (Employer), was injured on December 2, 1974, in a fist fight with a fellow employee after working hours. The altercation took place on the sidewalk of a public street adjacent to Employer's premises. Appellant filed a claim petition requesting an award of compensation and medical expenses pursuant to Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act) for injuries arising out of the altercation. The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirmed a referee's dismissal of Appellant's petition and this appeal followed.
Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 411.
Our scope of review in workmen's compensation cases is limited to a determination of whether or not an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or findings of fact necessary for the adjudication are unsupported by substantial evidence. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 38 Pa. Commw. 466, 394 A.2d 1068 (1978). After a careful review of the record, we hold that the Board committed no error and that the referee's decision is fully supported by the evidence.
In order for an injury to be compensable under Section 301(c) of the Act, it must arise "in the course of employment." This section provides for two distinct categories of compensable injuries arising in the course of employment: those sustained while the employee is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether sustained on or off the employer's premises; and those sustained by the employee on his employer's premises, provided that the injuries are caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business or affairs thereon, provided that the employee's presence is required thereon by the nature of his employment.
There can be no recovery in this case on the theory that Appellant was "actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer," since, at the time of her injury, Appellant had clocked out at the finish of her working day and was on her way home. Anzese v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 35 Pa. Commw. 256, 385 A.2d 625 (1978).
While, at times, the Courts of this Commonwealth, have considered a public sidewalk adjacent to an employer's business premises to be "on" the employer's premises and at other times, due to the factual matrix, to be "off" the employer's premises, it is unnecessary for us to distinguish in this instance. Regardless of Appellant's situs when injured, her injuries fail to meet the second statutorily created category of compensable injuries since these injuries were not caused by a condition of the premises nor as a result of the operation of Employer's business.
See Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. L. L. Stearns Sons, 20 Pa. Commw. 244, 341 A.2d 543 (1975); Ludwig v. Radio Corp. of America, 337 F. Supp. 664 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff'd 474 F.2d 1339 (1973); Hesselman v. Somerset Community Hospital, 203 Pa. Super. 313, 201 A.2d 302 (1964).
Therefore, we hold that the Board correctly concluded that Appellant's injuries did not occur in the course of employment and thus were not compensable.
In so holding, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether or not Claimant's injuries were "caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him" so as to be noncompensable under Section 301(c) of the Act.
Accordingly, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 1979, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, dated August 19, 1977, denying benefits to Rita Aglira is affirmed.