Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of William C. Harris v. Willowcrest-Bamberger Nursing Facility, No. A-81152.
Robert B. B. Schatz, Shein & Brookman, P.A., for petitioner.
Marc Myers, for respondent, Willowcrest-Bamberger Nursing Facility.
Judges Doyle and Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 484]
William C. Harris, Claimant in this workmen's compensation case, appeals to us from the decision by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the referee's denial of benefits for injuries suffered by Claimant on November 8, 1976. Compensation was denied on the basis that Claimant's injury was not incurred in the course of his employment, nor on the premises of his employer.
The referee found that the Claimant was at his place of business, the Willowcrest-Bamberger Nursing Facility (Willowcrest) located on the Albert Einstein Medical Center (Medical Center) campus, before he visited a fellow worker who was a patient in the neighboring Medical Center Hospital on the same campus. The Claimant's job did not require him to set foot outside of Willowcrest building; all of the premises outside the building line were controlled and maintained by the Medical Center. Claimant's visit and injury occurred between the hours of 12:00 noon and 1:00. At approximately 12:40, Claimant was found in a semi-stuporous state, face down on a platform of the Medical Center's stairway.
[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 485]
It is undisputed that Claimant suffers from epilepsy, a condition which pre-existed and is unrelated to his employment. He had no recollection of the events of that day with the exception of working earlier in the morning. Claimant suffered cuts and bruises over his left eye and lost partial vision as a result of the accident.
On the basis of these facts, the referee concluded that the Claimant was not injured in the course of his employment and was not on his employer's premises at the time he sustained injury. Accordingly, the referee denied benefits to the Claimant. The Board upheld the referee's conclusion. It is from this decision that the Claimant appeals.
In this case our scope of review is limited to determining whether "constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or there has been a capricious disregard of competent evidence." Killian v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 29, 36, 434 A.2d 906, 909 (1981); Harrigan v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 390, 393, 397 A.2d 490, 492 (1979).
To be compensable, the Claimant's injury must fall within Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act).*fn1 The Act requires that an injury to be compensable must occur in the course of employment and be related thereto. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. United States Steel Corp., 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 329, 376 A.2d 271 (1977) (U.S. Steel). We must look at the test found in U.S. Steel to ...