Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Richard Cozza v. Pittsburgh Press Company, No. A-71952.
Ernest B. Orsatti, with him Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, for petitioner.
J. Michael Doherty, with him Doherty, Heck & Robb, and James N. Diefenderfer, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 606]
Richard Cozza (claimant) appeals from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which held that he was ineligible for benefits since he was not injured in the course of his employment within the meaning of Section 301(c)(1) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 411(1). We affirm.
[ 34 Pa. Commw. Page 607]
Claimant, who was employed by the Pittsburgh Press Company as a keyroom dispatcher, normally performed his duties on the employer's premises. He was permitted to select his own lunch hour as his work permitted. On December 9, 1975, at about 11:15 a.m., claimant left his employer's premises and walked to a nearby restaurant to pick up a sandwich. He then walked to a church, where he remained for a short time. While he was walking from the church to his place of employment, he slipped and fell on an icy manhole cover in a public street, breaking his ankle.
Claimant filed a claim petition seeking workmen's compensation benefits. After a hearing at which only the claimant testified, a referee awarded benefits. When the Board reversed and denied benefits, claimant appealed to this Court.
The only issue in this case is whether or not claimant was injured in the course of his employment.
The statute, as in effect now and prior to 1972, clearly provides for two distinct categories of injuries which may 'arise in the course of employment': 1) those sustained while the employee is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether sustained on or off the employer's premises; and 2) those sustained by the employee on his employer's premises, provided that the injuries are caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business or affairs thereon and provided that the employee's presence is required thereon by the nature of his employment.
North American Rockwell Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 437, 440-41, ...