Here is a very interesting case from Pennsylvania, where the definition of “normal working conditions” is fraught with terror (and which, as a result, closes the door to comp compensability while potentially opening another to lawsuits). But in our excitement to discuss this intriguing case, we get ahead of ourselves.
Greg Kochanowicz worked as a manager for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. That might sound like an enforcement job, but ironically, his job was selling liquor from a retail outlet. On April 28, 2008, a masked man entered the store, pointed two guns at Greg and a co-worker, and forced them to empty the safe and cash register. The robber prodded the back of Greg’s head with one of the guns. After getting the cash, the robber used duct tape to tie Greg and his co-worker to chairs in the office. There was no physical harm – just the threat of violence if Greg did not cooperate.
Following this incident, Greg suffered from anxiety, depression and flashbacks. He was too traumatized to return to work. Diagnosed with PTSD, he collected temporary total benefits under workers comp for what Pennsylvania calls a “psychic” injury. (It is worth noting that in 1981 Greg’s brother was stabbed to death in a robbery, an incident for which Greg received no counseling or support.)
Abnormal Justice
Greg’s employer appealed the WCJ ruling. A split panel of judges (4-3) reversed the finding of compensability on the basis that armed robberies were a “normal” working condition – and only “abnormal” working conditions lead to compensability for PTSD/”psychic” injuries. That’s a very interesting notion, indeed.
In its reversal, the appeals court noted that robberies were quite common among the Liquor Control Board stores: in the five county area, there were 99 robberies since 2002, an average of one a month. In addition, employees were acutely aware of the risks. They received a written pamphlet entitled “Things you should know about armed robbery.” Greg had read the booklet and received training related to it. In fact, he followed the employer’s written protocol to the letter, thereby avoiding bodily harm to himself and his co-worker.
The appeals court is saying that armed robberies should come as no surprise to liquor board employees. They have been forewarned. And in the view of a majority of the judges, forewarned is foreclosed: there can be no compensability for a psychic injury as a result of normal working conditions. (Had Greg been shot, however, he would have had a compensable injury.)
OSHA to the Rescue?
The appeals court states that having a gun pressed to the back of the head is a “normal” working condition. If this is indeed true, then the employer has put employees in a workplace that is fraught with risk. This is something employers are not allowed to do.
Here is OSHA’s General Duty Clause:
“Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”
If the court is correct, if armed robberies are a “normal” working condition, then the employer has failed to eliminate an unacceptable risk. By leaving unarmed employees in high risk areas, they are out of compliance with OSHA standards. Given their knowledge of the likelihood of robberies, they should place armed guards in each store, particularly in evening hours. Their failure to protect employees from an all-too-routine hazard is unacceptable and may be grounds for lawsuits.
This case is wending its way toward the PA Supreme Court, where the arguments of the dissenting judges, led by Renee Cohn Jubelirer, are likely to prevail. Greg will probably qualify once again for workers comp. Yes, he received training in violence; he was well aware of the risks in his job; he even handled the situation with exemplary composure. But there is nothing normal about having a gun pressed into the back of your head, unless you are an actor taping a cop show for cable TV.
