Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Personal animus exception doesn't apply to unprovoked attack

Under the Pennsylvania personal animus exception, an injury suffered as a result of a personal attack by a third party is not covered by workers' compensation.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Morris v. Lanta, 26 PAWCLR 26 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2011).

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the workers' compensation judge's finding that the employer's contest was unreasonable.

What it means: Under the Pennsylvania personal animus exception, an injury suffered as a result of a personal attack by a third party is not covered by workers' compensation.

Summary: The board ruled that the personal animus exception did not block a bus driver's entitlement to benefits. The driver was walking to use a public restroom in a mall when a person he walked by asked, "What are you looking at?" The driver said "Not a f-ing thing" and the person grabbed him by the throat and threw him against a wall. The WCJ granted the driver's claim petition and found an unreasonable contest. The board affirmed the grant of the petition, finding that the personal animus exception did not apply. The driver did not take any steps toward antagonizing or fighting with his attacker. The driver was simply walking from his bus toward a public restroom. Furthermore, the driver and his assailant did not know each other prior to the incident.

The board also reversed the WCJ's finding of an unreasonable contest. The employer's reliance on the personal animus exception would not have been misplaced if the WCJ found that the short verbal exchange between the driver and the assailant was a step toward antagonizing or fighting with his attacker.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

April 25, 2011

Copyright 2011© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.