Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. v. Hentish

• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Writing for the Court: Author: Bowman
• Citation: Workmen's Compensation Appeal Bd. v. Hentish, 341 A.2d 926, 20 Pa.Cmwlth. 514 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1975)
• Decision Date: 29 July 1975
• Parties: WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD et al., Appellees, v. Anna HENTISH, Appellant.

Page 926

341 A.2d 926

20 Pa.Cmwlth. 514

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD et al., Appellees, v. Anna HENTISH, Appellant.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 7, 1975.

Decided July 29, 1975.

Butz, Hudders & Tallman by Richard F. Stevens, Allentown, for appellant.

Robert A. Weinert, Allentown, for appellees.

James N. Dienfenderfer, Allentown, for Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.

Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., and MENCER, JJ.

BOWMAN, President Judge.

This is one of a number of appeal recently brought before this Court testing an employee's entitlement to workmen's compensation benefits as a result of an injury occurring after completion of a work shift and outside the physical confines of the building in which the employee performed his or her work assignment. Is such an injury a compensable one within the meaning of section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, As amended, 77 P.S. § 411?

In pertinent part, this section provides:

'(c) The terms 'injury' and 'personal injury,' as used in this act, shall be construed to mean an injury to an employe . . . arising in the course of his employment and related thereto . . . The term 'injury arising in the course of his employment,' . . . shall include all . . . injuries sustained while the employe is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether upon the employer's premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employe, who, though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer's business or affairs are being carried on, the employe's presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.'

On stipulated facts, the referee concluded, and the Board affirmed the referee's conclusion, that appellant here had not suffered her injury in the course of her employment 'nor was she on the premises' of her employer at the time of the accident.

The briefly stated agreed to facts disclose that appellant fell on an ice covered public sidewalk fronting a three story building, the first floor of which was occupied by the owner of the building, and the second and third floors of which were leased to and used by appellant's employer in the conduct of its business. The accident...