SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Pennsylvania Case Summaries

Ganley v. Upper Darby Twp. Workers Comp. Appeal Bd.
No. 770 C.D. 2024
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided: October 22, 2025

While individual aspects of a claimant’s experience might be expected for firefighters, such as performing CPR and witnessing death, the specific combination of events—performing CPR on and witnessing the deaths of two infants within 16 months—may qualify as extraordinarily unusual.

Facts

Claimant worked as a firefighter from 2001 until May of 2021. In his final two and a half years as a firefighter, Claimant experienced two events in which he performed CPR on infants who were not breathing, both of whom were unable to be revived. After the first incident, Claimant continued to work for Employer but suffered from mental issues related to the incident. Following the second incident, Claimant’s mental health symptoms intensified, and he left his duties as a firefighter because of them. As a result of these combined incidents, Claimant experienced mental issues including anxiety, depression, anger, PTSD, loss of appetite and sleep, and nightmares. During his career, Claimant administered CPR numerous times to adults, some of whom were unable to be revived. Claimant had never performed CPR on an infant except for on these two occasions.

The WCJ denied Claimant’s claim for benefits for a work injury in the nature of PTSD under the Act, finding that Claimant did not establish the causative events were abnormal. Specifically, the WCJ found that “the administration of CPR was a normal part of [Claimant’s] job and cannot be considered an abnormal working condition.” The WCJ further stated: “Situations like the instant one . . . are simply not extraordinary or abnormal for first responders.” Claimant appealed to the WCAB, which affirmed the WCJ. Claimant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

Holding

The Commonwealth Court found that while individual aspects of Claimant’s experience may be expected for firefighters, the specific combination of events was extraordinarily unusual. Notably, the Court stated, “certain events, even in high-stress professions, may rise to the level of abnormal working conditions.”

Takeaway

Abnormal working conditions do not need to be unique. Rather, the fact-sensitive nature of the injury may require looking at the totality of circumstances, instead of breaking events into component parts.

Moreover, the new PTSI amendments to the Act effectively eliminate the “abnormal working conditions” standard for first responders as of October 29, 2025.

Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.

Yoder v. McCarthy Const. et al.
No. 43 EAP 2024
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided: October 23, 2025

An entity does not waive its statutory employer defense by failing to raise it in a timely answer to a negligence complaint.

Facts

In August 2016, McCarthy entered into a contract with the Borough of Norwood to remove and replace the roof on the local library. McCarthy and RRR Contractors, Inc. (RRR) entered into a subcontract to perform this work. Jason Yoder worked for RRR. While working on the Library’s roof, Yoder fell through an uncovered hole and sustained severe and permanent disabling injuries that would require pain management for the rest of his life. In May 2018, Yoder filed a negligence complaint against McCarthy. McCarthy filed a late answer, which was struck by the trial court. Prior to trial, the court held that McCarthy waived its statutory employer defense. Following trial, the jury unanimously determined that McCarthy was negligent. The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s judgment, finding that McCarthy did not waive its statutory employer defense for failure to raise it in its answer. After applying the McDonald test, the Superior Court held that McCarthy was Yoder’s statutory employer and therefore immune from tort liability.

Holding

On appeal, the Supreme Court relied upon the McDonald test, determining McCarthy to be the statutory employer. The test requires the contractor to have a contract with an owner, control the premises, have a subcontract for a portion of its regular business, and an employee of that subcontractor must have been injured. McCarthy satisfied each element.

Takeaway

Employers and insurers should continue to be mindful of asserting the statutory employer defense to avoid tort liability.

Questions about this case can be directed to Gabrielle Martin at 610-332-7003 or gmartin@tthlaw.com.