A sad case out of Pennsylvania ruled that a mother, who also acted as state funded caretaker to her son, could not collect workers’ compensation benefits when she was attacked by her son, possibly as a result of his illness.

She was paid hourly to care for her son who had a long-term drug problem and resulting health issues. She was the “hired” caregiver to her son, her “employer”. One night her son attacked and stabbed her while she was asleep in her house, where she and her son both stayed. It was her son’s legal residence at the time of the attack. She claimed he had never been violent before this incident. She sought workers’ compensation benefits because she had many physical injuries and also claimed she could not work because now she suffered from PTSD.

Initially a workers’ compensation judge awarded her weekly benefits and 47 weeks of disfigurement because she showed the judge that her employment required her to be at the employer’s premises when she was injured. She worked when her employer needed something, though when she was asleep or out she was not expected to be on call 24/7. Her son, now in jail for the attack, appealed.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied her benefits because she was not within the course and scope of her employment, and they did not think the attack was work related. There was allegedly a disagreement between mother and son a few hours before the attack about a meal. The board ruled that since she was asleep she was not performing any duties that would benefit her son, the employer.

The Commonwealth Court awarded her benefits and reversed the lower court’s decision. They used the bunkhouse rule, which provides compensation if the employee is required to be at the home when their injury occurred. Typically the state provides housing, but the son had nowhere else to live and he was approved to live with his mother.

When her case got to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court they ruled otherwise. In this situation, the mother’s job duties did not require her to be available overnight since her son did not qualify for such care. She owned the home where the attack occurred and was not there solely because of her employment but because it was convenient. The state’s Supreme Court ruled that she could not collect benefits because she did not meet the burden of proof that she was within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the attack. They felt that she was trying to use workers’ compensation as her health insurance for a personal injury, rather than what workers’ comp was initially intended for as compensation for a purely work related injury.