Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

6 Citing cases

  1. McMillan v. St. Mut. Life Assur. Co., America

    922 F.2d 1073 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 86 times
    Construing an ambiguous, undefined provision of an insurance policy against the insurer because "[n]either the context of the rest of the policy nor any other evidence extrinsic to the phrase itself renders the meaning of [the disputed phrase] more conspicuous"

    The operation of the Pennsylvania statute in an analogous fact situation helps to illustrate the point. In Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Altholz), 83 Pa.Cmwlth. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984), an employee had been injured while changing in the employer's locker room after completing work for the day. The Commonwealth Court held that the employee was not "engaged in furtherance of his employer's business," and that his injuries would be compensable only if he could meet the standard applicable to injuries suffered on the employer's premises.

  2. Good Shep. W. v. W.C.A.B

    124 Pa. Commw. 262 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1989)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that the workplace floor was a “condition of the premises”

    In response to this argument by the employer we need only point out that Judge BLATT's dissenting position has never become the majority position of this court. See, e.g., Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Altholz), 83 Pa. Commw. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984). In Anzese this court concluded that an employee's death caused by his being struck by lightning while on his motorcycle in his employer's parking lot was not a work-related injury because it was not caused by a condition of the premises.

  3. Globe L., Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Johnson)

    550 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Even assuming that Decedent was not engaged in the furtherance of Employer's affairs at the time of his injury, the law is clear that his injuries are compensable if (1) he is on his employer's premises, and (2) he is required by the nature of his employer's business to be there, and (3) his injuries are caused by the condition of the premises or in the operation of the employer's affairs thereon. Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Altholz), 83 Pa. Commw. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984). There is no dispute that Decedent met the first two criteria of Penn Pad. Employer asserts, however, that Decedent was not injured by a condition of the premises.

  4. Pypers v. W.C.A.B

    105 Pa. Commw. 448 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1987)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Pypers, the claimant fell in the parking lot of the restaurant where she worked an hour after her work shift and was still on the premises because she had been partying and dancing in the restaurant after she finished work. 524 A.2d at 1047-49.

    In this regard, there are two issues for our review: one being whether the employe is injured on the premises occupied by or under the control of the Employer; the other being whether the employe was required to be on the employer's premises by the nature of his or her employment. See Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Altholz), 83 Pa. Commw. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984). Claimant must prove both elements of this test in order to satisfy the burden of proof that her injury arose in the course of employment.

  5. Economy Dec., Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Federici)

    506 A.2d 1357 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that " presumptive partial disability exists by virtue of the order to suspend compensation; the employer can eliminate liability only by offering suitable work."

    Heart attacks are compensable injuries under Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 411(1), if they arise in the course of employment and are related thereto. Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Altholz), 83 Pa. Commw. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984). Section 306(b) of the Act, 77 P. S. § 512, provides for the following compensation: "For disability partial in character . . . sixty-six and two-thirds per centum of the difference between the wages of the injured employee . . . and the earning power of the employee.

  6. Lewis v. W.C.A.B

    496 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    It is the Claimant's burden to prove that she is entitled to benefits. Penn Pad Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 83 Pa. Commw. 490, 478 A.2d 497 (1984). Where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed before the referee, and the Board takes no additional evidence, this Court's scope of review is limited to a determination as to whether any constitutional rights were violated or an error of law was committed or whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact.