rare exception in Pennsylvania

2025As this Court has stressed, denying benefits based on the violation of a positive work order is “the very rare exception to the broad general principle that all injuries sustained by [a claimant] arising in the course of his or her 17 employment and causally related thereto are compensable[.]” Id. [citing U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Comp’ Appeal Bd. (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)].

2022We came to the opposite conclusion in Camino, in which we emphasized that cases in which a claimant is denied benefits for violating a positive work order represent “the very rare exception to the broad general principle that all injuries sustained by an employee arising in the course of his or her employment and causally related thereto are compensable under Section 301(c)(1) of the [Act].” Camino, 796 A.2d at 418 .

2025As this Court has stressed, denying benefits based on the violation of a positive work order is “the very rare exception to the broad general principle that all injuries sustained by [a claimant] arising in the course of his or her 17 employment and causally related thereto are compensable[.]” Id. [citing U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Comp’ Appeal Bd. (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)].

2002Therefore, we held that the claimant was not injured within the course of his employment. 3 It must be remembered that these cases are the very rare exception to the broad general principle that all injuries sustained by an employee arising in the course of his or her employment and causally related thereto are compensable under Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act). 4 See U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 567 Pa. 753 , 788 A.2d 382 (2001).

2022To deny benefits, the injury must not only “arise out of the employee’s engagement with ‘instrumentalities, places, or things about or on which the 9 employee has no duty to perform,’ but also matters with which the employee’s ‘employment does not connect him[.]’” Id. (citing Dickey, 146 A. at 544 ).

2016Appellant avers that “[t]he closing of a courtroom is a very serious matter and closure is and should be the rare exception, and may not be ordered absent careful balancing of competing interests, consideration of alternatives to closure, and [an] articulation of findings.” Appellant’s Brief at 25 (citing Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010)).

2016Although the circumstances and analysis have varied, the circuit courts have agreed that even if Alleyne announced a new rule, the decision is not the rare exception that announced a watershed rule of criminal procedure that “‘altered our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements' of the adjudicatory process.” United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 136 (3rd Cir. 2014) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); accord Hughes v. United States, 770 F.3d 814 , 818–19 (9th Cir. 2014).

2016Although the circumstances and analysis have varied, the circuit courts have agreed that even if Alleyne announced a new rule, the decision is not the rare exception that announced a watershed rule of criminal procedure that “‘altered our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements' of the adjudicatory process.” United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 136 (3rd Cir. 2014) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); accord Hughes v. United States, 770 F.3d 814 , 818–19 (9th Cir. 2014).