Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Annabelle E. Carl v. G.H. Delp Company, No. A-82252.
Joseph A. Zane, Zane and Zane, P.C. for petitioner.
Frank L. Tamulonis, Jr., Zimmerman, Lieberman & Derenzo, for respondent, G.H. Delp Company.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri. Judge John A. MacPhail dissents.
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 333]
Claimant in this workmen's compensation case, Annabelle E. Carl, appeals here from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board disallowing compensation on the basis of findings by a compensation referee. We will reverse and remand.
The uncontradicted testimony in this case establishes that Claimant, a computer operator, suffered the rupture of a cerebral aneurysm as a result of physical exertion while pushing the car of a fellow employee in the snow on January 20, 1978. She has not returned to work since, and the employer has hired another to take her place, thereby denying her request
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 334]
for reemployment, among her efforts to attempt return to employment.
Following her injury on January 20, 1978, she was hospitalized and, on February 9, 1978, surgery was performed, consisting of a right frontal temporal craniotomy. The hemorrhaging which took place before surgery was from a middle cerebral artery in a surgically difficult area of the brain and was such that the normal stripping of the aneurysm could not be performed, so that the bleeding was stopped by inserting "a piece of muscle around the aneurysm." There was conflicting testimony on when she would be able to return to work, her employment being somewhat sedentary, but it is uncontradicted that she was unable to perform any form of gainful occupation at least until June 13, 1978. Claimant continues to be treated for disorders from which she still complains, such as dizziness, vertigo, headaches, weakness, nervousness and "ringing of the ears." She is, however, willing to work but has been unable to find suitable employment. The central issue before us, as it was before the referee and the Board, is whether the place and the occasion of the claimant's injury made it compensable under the provisions of Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1 Section 301(c) defines the phrase "injury arising in the course of employment," to
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
[ 79 Pa. Commw. Page 335]
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 employee's presence ...