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.

TREDYFFRIN-EASTTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JAMES A. BREYER (12/18/79)

decided: December 18, 1979.

TREDYFFRIN-EASTTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER
v.
JAMES A. BREYER, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of James A. Breyer v. Tredyffrin-Easttown School District, No. A-74016.

COUNSEL

Michael P. McKenna for petitioner.

Robert A. Detweiler for respondent.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr. Dissenting Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 82]

Petitioner (School District) appeals from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which reversed the referee's dismissal of the

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 83]

    respondent's (claimant) petition for compensation and remanded for determination of the benefits payable. We affirm.

Claimant was a math teacher at Conestoga High School (Conestoga) in the School District and a volunteer assistant coach for the Conestoga track team. Claimant's voluntary services were approved by the Conestoga athletic director. Whenever it was necessary for the claimant to leave school early to attend a track meet, Conestoga would help provide somebody to cover his classes.

On May 28, 1974, the head track coach held a picnic at his home for the track coaches, including the claimant, and the senior members of the Conestoga track team. Similar picnics had been held at the head coach's house for ten years to honor graduating seniors on the track team and to discuss track matters and the students' future plans. The Conestoga administration loaned tables and chairs for the picnic but contributed no food, money, or personnel.

While at the picnic claimant was struck in the right eye by a football. The injury resulted in the loss of sight in his right eye for all practical intents and purposes. Claimant thereafter petitioned for workmen's compensation benefits.

The issue in this case is whether the claimant's eye injury was sustained while he was "actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer." 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(1). The determination of whether an employee is in the course of his employment at the time of injury is one of law based upon findings of fact. Aluminum Co. of America v. Workmen's ...


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.