Starr Aviation v. WCAB (Colquitt)

Citations: 155 A.3d 1156; 2017 WL 892586; 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 60Docket: Starr Aviation v. WCAB (Colquitt) - 659 C.D. 2016

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; March 6, 2017; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Starr Aviation (Employer) petitions the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to review the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board's decision affirming a workers' compensation judge's (WCJ) ruling in favor of Modesty Colquitt (Claimant). Claimant, employed as a ramp agent lead at Pittsburgh International Airport, sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of her left leg, after an accident involving a tug vehicle while on duty. On September 2, 2014, Claimant, who had begun her menstrual cycle and forgotten her wallet, called her mother for feminine products and money. With her supervisor's permission, she drove the tug to meet her mother at the Landside Terminal when the vehicle flipped, causing the injury.

Claimant filed a claim asserting the injury occurred in the course of her employment, which Employer denied, arguing the injury did not fall within this scope. During the hearing, Claimant's testimony was supported by co-workers, while Employer presented testimony suggesting Claimant was operating the tug too fast and had access to feminine products in the break room. The WCJ found Claimant's testimony credible, acknowledging that her menstrual cycle affected her job performance and necessitated the need for feminine products. The WCJ’s findings and decision were ultimately upheld by the Board.

Claimant received permission from her supervisor to leave her work temporarily to meet her mother at the Landside Terminal, and her injury occurred on Employer's premises. The WCJ determined that this brief departure did not remove Claimant from the course of her employment, as it was for personal comfort purposes that would enable her to continue her shift. The WCJ applied the personal comfort doctrine, concluding that Claimant remained in the course of her employment during her temporary absence. The WCJ assessed Employer's witnesses’ testimonies as irrelevant, finding their claims about the availability of feminine products, the speed of Claimant's tug use, and her offering snacks to be inconsequential. Consequently, the WCJ granted Claimant’s claim, declaring her totally disabled since her injury on September 2, 2014. On appeal, the Board upheld this decision, and Employer argued that the personal comfort doctrine was misapplied, asserting that Claimant’s actions did not constitute a temporary departure. However, it was noted that under Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, for an injury to be compensable, it must occur in the course of employment. The applicable test focuses on whether the employee was engaged in the employer’s business, regardless of location. The determination of whether an employee was acting within the course of employment is a legal question based on the WCJ’s factual findings. Activities not advancing the employer's interests typically disqualify claims.

An employee is considered to have sustained an injury while engaged in the employer’s business if the injury occurs during minor, innocuous departures from work within regular hours. This principle, known as the personal comfort doctrine, allows for brief breaks to attend to personal needs, such as using the restroom or retrieving personal items, as part of the course of employment. In Wetzel v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, the court found that the claimant's injury occurred while she was attending to her personal comfort by retrieving feminine products delivered by her mother, which was necessary for her job performance. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) noted that the claimant's menstrual cycle could adversely affect her work, and thus, attending to this personal need was in furtherance of the employer's interests. The claimant's actions were permitted by her employer, aligning with previous cases that recognize authorized breaks for personal needs as part of the employment course. The court affirmed that, like restroom breaks, retrieving necessary personal items is also covered under the personal comfort doctrine.

The employee's actions, taken with permission, were aimed at addressing personal health needs that could affect work performance, aligning with the personal comfort doctrine. Despite the Claimant's mother delivering additional items, the focus remained on the necessity of feminine hygiene products, which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) prioritized. The Board and WCJ determined that the Claimant was acting in furtherance of the Employer's interests during the injury incident. The Employer's argument concerning the location of the injury is rendered moot since the injury is compensable regardless of whether it occurred on the Employer's premises, as established by precedent. 

The Employer further contended that the WCJ improperly dismissed its witnesses' testimonies as irrelevant. However, the Board clarified that the WCJ did not question the credibility of these witnesses but deemed their testimony insufficient to alter the legal outcome. The WCJ credited the Claimant’s account of her departure and found no evidence from the Employer’s witnesses that undermined her explanation. The testimony offered by Employer's witnesses did not contradict the Claimant's assertion that her menstrual cycle began at work, and the WCJ noted that the necessity of the Claimant's trip to her mother was a collateral issue. The Board upheld that any potential fault in the Claimant's decisions does not negate liability under the workers’ compensation framework, emphasizing the no-fault nature of the Act.

Employer's attempt to introduce fault and negligence into the workers’ compensation proceedings is rejected, as the Workers’ Compensation Act does not recognize negligence as a defense. The court finds no merit in Employer's argument regarding the award of total disability benefits versus specific loss benefits since this issue was not raised in Employer's appeal to the Board and was not reasonably encompassed within its assertions of error. Employer failed to mention "specific loss benefits" in its appeal, indicating that this legal issue was not impliedly raised. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) was found to have committed an error of law by concluding that Claimant met the burden of proof for total disability benefits. Consequently, the issue is waived for appeal purposes, as established in prior case law. The court affirms the Board's decision to grant Claimant’s claim petition. Additionally, Employer acknowledges that Claimant has filed a review petition for additional injuries, which could lead to ongoing disability benefits if granted. The order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board from March 30, 2016, is affirmed.