Opinion

Murphy v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

  • 110 A.3d 227
  • 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 77
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 20, 2015
Status
Published
Author
McCullough
On the bench
Brobson, Covey, Jubelirer, Leadbetter, McCullough, McGinley, Pellegrini
Cited by
10 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.7%

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION by

Judge McCullough.

I agree with the result reached by the Majority as well as its thoughtful analysis. I write separately to emphasize that, as recognized by the Majority, in Payes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Commonwealth PA State Police), 621 Pa. 564 , 79 A.3d 543 (2013) our Supreme Court clarified the abnormal working conditions standard. Because cases involving mental injuries are highly fact-sensitive, there is no bright line test or standard that is generally applicable, and the court’s findings must be based on the unique findings of the case, as found by the workers’ compensation judge. At one time, the fact that Pamela Murphy’s son-in-law was murdered while working for the same employer would militate a determination that the specific violent episode experienced by this claimant was not an abnormal working condition. Following the Supreme Court’s *242 decision in Payes , however, such presumptions no longer apply.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.