PA Court Says Janitor’s Fall Near Entrance of Building is Compensable
A Pennsylvania appellate court reversed a decision of a state workers’ compensation judge, affirmed by the state’s Board, that had denied workers’ compensation benefits to a janitor who sustained injuries as he slipped and fell exiting a shuttle van near the front entrance of the building where he was assigned [Stewart v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bravo Grp. Servs.), 2021 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 502 (July 2, 2021). Applying the so-called Slaugenhaupt Standard, the court found the claimant was not barred by the “going and coming” rule. That the claimant may have slipped over his own feet was irrelevant, said the court, since fault should not play a role in determining the compensability of claimant’s injuries.
Background
Claimant worked as a janitor for a services company that provided janitorial services at the Glaxo Smith Kline building in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained while exiting a shuttle van in front of the Smith Kline building before beginning his shift. He commuted to work each day by public transportation. At Gulph Mills Station, he took a shuttle operated by Smith Kline to his assigned building. At the end of his shift, Claimant returned to the Gulph Mills Station on a shuttle that was provided and operated by his employer.
The incident causing Claimant’s injuries occurred approximately one-half hour before Claimant would have clocked in. His shift began at 5:00 p.m., but he was not permitted to clock in until five minutes before the beginning of his shift.
The WCJ denied the claim petition, concluding that Claimant was not injured in the course and scope of his employment. The WCJ reasoned that the Smith Kline shuttle was not part of the employer’s “premises.” The Board affirmed, finding that Claimant’s injuries were not compensable under the “going and coming” rule. The Board emphasized that the Smith Kline shuttle picked up Claimant at a public transportation station and reasoned that Claimant could have used any number of modes of transportation to commute to the building.
Slaugenhaupt Standard
The appellate court noted that even if a claimant is not furthering the employer’s business at the time of injury, the claimant is still entitled to compensation if he or she:
- is on the premises occupied or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer’s business or affairs are being carried on;
- is required by the nature of his or her employment to be present on the employer’s premises; and
- sustains injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by operation of the employer’s business or affairs thereon [Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Slaugenhaupt) v. United States Steel Corp., 31 Pa. Commw. 329, 376 A.2d 271 (1977)].
The appellate court stressed that here, there was no dispute that Claimant was not furthering his employer’s business when he was injured. Accordingly, Claimant’s appeal turned on whether his injury took place on the employer’s premises. As such, the three-prong test in Slaugenhaupt governed. The court also observed that parking lots, public streets, and common areas in multi-unit office buildings, may be considered part of the employer’s premises if they are integral to the employer’s workplace or constitute a reasonable means of ingress to or egress from the workplace.
Applying the three-pronged Slaugenhaupt standard, the court noted that Claimant slipped and fell within a few feet of the front entrance of the Smith Kline building, which was the place where the employer’s business or affairs were carried on. The only substantial question here was whether Claimant’s injury met the third prong of the standard, i.e., whether Claimant’s injuries were caused by a condition of the premises.
The court noted that the WCJ found that Claimant slipped and fell forward to the ground while stepping down off the shuttle van. In Slaugenhaupt, the court had held that a concrete abutment was a condition of the employer’s premises that contributed to the employee’s death, although there, the claimant lost control of his car due to an epileptic seizure. The court stressed that likewise, here, the ground where Claimant landed constituted a condition of the premises that contributed to Claimant’s injuries.
Fault Should Not be Introduced
The court also noted that Claimant may have tripped over his own feet while exiting the shuttle van, but it stressed that concepts of fault and negligence had no bearing on the application of the Act. The critical inquiry under the third prong of the Slaugenhaupt test was whether the condition of the premises or operation of the employer’s affairs thereon played some role in the causative chain of the claimant’s injury. The court concluded that the condition of the premises played some role in the causative chain of Claimant’s injury.
Case Remanded
The court held that Claimant had satisfied the three-prong Slaugenhaupt test to prove that he sustained injuries in the course of employment under Section 301(c)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the court reversed the Board’s adjudication and remanded for a determination of the amount of compensation benefits payable with respect to Claimant’s injury.