Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD v. ANNA HENTISH (07/29/75)

decided: July 29, 1975.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD, BY-MAR, INC. AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER, APPELLEES,
v.
ANNA HENTISH, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Anna Hentish v. By-Mar, Inc., No. A-67903.

COUNSEL

Robert Van Horn, with him Richard F. Stevens, and Butz, Hudders & Tallman, for appellant.

Robert A. Weinert, with him James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.

Author: Bowman

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 514]

This is one of a number of appeals 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

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 515]

    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. ยง 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.