Vacated: denial of petition for mental injury on basis that armed robbery at gunpoint was not abnormal working condition for general manager of check cashing store

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge should have considered her case under the “physical/mental standard” and not the “mental/mental” standard. She additionally argued that, even under the “mental/mental” standard, she showed that the armed robbery was not a normal working condition of her employment. The Commonwealth Court rejected the claimant’s argument that the case should have been decided under the “physical/mental” standard. The court held that the claimant’s PTSD was not the result of her physical injury, which consisted of slight bruising of her wrists and ankles, but the entire experience of the armed robbery. According to the court, physical contact alone is insufficient and does not equate with the physical stimulus. The court did, however, vacate the Judge’s decision on the basis of the Judge’s conclusion that the armed robbery was not an abnormal work condition for the claimant and that it was not consistent with the standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Payes v. WCAB (PA State Police), 79 A 3^rd 543 (Pa. 213) (Payes II). In Payes II, the Supreme Court clarified the abnormal working conditions standard and held that it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, explaining that, because mental injury cases are highly fact sensitive, for actual working conditions to be considered abnormal, they must be considered in the context of specific employment. An abnormal working conditions analysis does not end when it is established that the claimant generically belongs to a profession that involves certain levels or types of stress. The court returned the case to the Judge to apply the appropriate analysis and determine whether the armed robbery was an abnormal working condition.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}