Summary
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s denial of Inez Waugh’s petition to reinstate workers’ compensation benefits. The court held that substantial evidence supported findings that Waugh violated her employer’s policy by applying a tourniquet and palpating for a vein outside the scope of her certified nursing assistant duties, and that her resulting termination was attributable to bad-faith conduct rather than her work injury. Senior Judge Pellegrini dissented, concluding that the employer had not conclusively shown a policy violation or bad faith.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that applying a tourniquet constituted the practice of phlebotomy and violated the employer’s policy.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Waugh acted in bad faith by violating the employer’s policy.
- Whether Waugh was entitled to reinstatement of workers’ compensation benefits after her termination.
Holdings
- Substantial evidence supported the workers’ compensation judge’s finding that applying a tourniquet constituted part of the practice of phlebotomy and therefore fell within the employer’s policy restricting certified nursing assistants from performing procedures outside their job duties.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Waugh acted in bad faith by performing work outside the scope of her job duties in violation of the employer’s policy.
- Waugh was not entitled to reinstatement of benefits because her loss of earnings resulted from her bad-faith conduct that caused her termination, rather than from her work injury.
Key quotations
“When an employer terminates a claimant for a violation of a company policy, it must present conclusive evidence that the claimant violated that policy in order to rebut any loss of earnings as being through no fault of her own.” (majority opinion at 5-6)
“A showing of a lack of good faith, or bad faith, on the part of the claimant, is not the same as the willful misconduct standard sufficient to deny unemployment compensation.” (majority opinion at 5)
Factual background
Waugh, a certified nursing assistant, suffered an arm injury at work in January 2012 and later returned to light-duty employment. In May 2014, while assisting phlebotomists, she applied a tourniquet and palpated a patient’s arm while attempting to help locate a vein. The employer determined that this conduct exceeded the scope of her job duties and terminated her employment. Waugh sought reinstatement of workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that her work-related disability had again caused a loss of earning power.
Procedural history
The workers’ compensation judge denied Waugh’s reinstatement petition, finding that her loss of earnings resulted from her bad-faith violation of her employer’s policy rather than from her work injury. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed, and Waugh petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s order.