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.

DANA CORPORATION AND HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (GEARHART) (10/07/88)

decided: October 7, 1988.

DANA CORPORATION AND HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, PETITIONERS
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (GEARHART), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in the case of Malcolm J. Gearhart v. Dana Corporation, No. A-92272.

COUNSEL

Barbara L. Hollenbach, Holland, Taylor and Sorrentino, for petitioners.

Morris D. Bernstein, Galfand, Berger, Senesky, Lurie & March, for respondent.

Judges Barry and Smith, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry. This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge MacPhail.

Author: Barry

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 278]

Claimant, Malcolm Gearhart, was employed by petitioner, Dana Corporation (employer), on December 30, 1983, when he suffered an injury after his work shift had ended. He had completed his shift at 3:00 p.m. and was walking through employer's parking lot on the way to his car which was parked in the street when he stopped to assist a co-worker who was having trouble getting his car started. Claimant was struck by the co-worker's car when it unexpectedly moved backwards as claimant was positioning himself to help push it forward. Claimant suffered disabling injuries as a result of this accident.

Claimant filed a workmen's compensation petition and was granted benefits. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed the referee's decision and appeal to this Court followed. The issue before this Court is whether claimant was in

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 279]

    the course of employment when he was injured. We hold that he was not.*fn1

The relevant portion of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act in this situation is Section 301(c)(1),*fn2 which reads in pertinent part:

The term 'injury arising in the course of his employment,' . . . shall include all other 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 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 employe's presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.

Since claimant was not engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, he must satisfy three conditions under the statute in order for his injury to be in the course of employment. The statute requires that (1) the injury occurred on the employer's premises, (2) the employee's presence thereon was required by the nature of his employment, and (3) the injury was caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business ...


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.