Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, in the case of Stephen G. Uleski v. PPG Industries, Inc., No. A-90976.
Thomas Levendos, for petitioner.
David L. Caplan, with him, Alfred G. Yates, Jr., for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Colins and McGinley, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 116 Pa. Commw. Page 598]
PPG Industries, Inc. (Petitioner) appeals from the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the order of Referee Robert J. Steiner (Referee) in awarding Stephen G. Uleski
[ 116 Pa. Commw. Page 599]
tained when his car was struck by a train after he had left the Petitioner's parking lot. We affirm.
Claimant was employed by the Petitioner for thirty-seven years and at the time of his injury he was responsible for performing general janitorial duties. On December 18, 1980, at approximately 12:00 p.m., the Claimant was leaving work after completing his eight-hour shift. Petitioner's parking lot was located on the other side of Ferry Street, a public street controlled and maintained by East Deer Township. The sole means of ingress to and egress from the Petitioner's parking lot was by means of Ferry Street. Ferry Street extends from Route 28 to the Allegheny River. There is an unpaved portion of the street which dead-ends at the river. There is no way for Petitioner's employees to enter or leave Petitioner's parking lot other than by Ferry Street. Just before Ferry Street intersects with Route 28, there is a set of railroad tracks owned and controlled by Conrail.
On the evening in question, the Claimant had crossed Ferry Street to the parking lot, picked up his car, left the Petitioner's parking lot, accessed Ferry Street and attempted to cross the set of railroad tracks when his car was struck by an oncoming train. As a result of the accident, the claimant lost his right eye and suffered injury to his back and fingers.
The Referee found that the Claimant was entitled to compensation for the injuries he sustained because the situs of the accident was an integral part of Petitioner's premises, thus bringing Claimant's injury within the statutory definition of an injury arising in the course of employment. The Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board on the grounds that the Claimant was not injured within the course of his employment and that there was no proper notice given to the Petitioner pursuant to Section 311 of The Pennsylvania
[ 116 Pa. Commw. Page 600]
Workmen's Compensation Act (Act), Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 631. The Board concluded that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the Referee's findings and that the Referee had made no error of ...