## Facts

- Lionell Graves worked as a patrolman for the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), assigned to housing projects in North Philadelphia.
- While off duty, Graves spent the evening socializing in Philadelphia, wearing civilian clothes, driving his personal vehicle, and carrying a personal firearm (not his service weapon).
- Around 2:00 a.m., Graves went alone to a private party at a South Philadelphia tavern and told the bouncer he was an off-duty officer and had a gun.
- During the party, Graves perceived a potential problem when an individual (“Dante”) arrived and the bouncer signaled the owner; Graves noticed a bulge on Dante’s side and believed it could be a weapon.
- Graves announced he was a police officer, told Dante to leave, and told the owner to call 911; Dante left, and Graves left shortly after.
- Outside the tavern, Graves encountered Dante, who pointed a gun at him; Graves did not draw his own gun and walked toward Dante.
- Dante shot Graves in the hip and groin; Graves retreated into the bar and closed the door; Dante fired through the door, striking Graves in the elbow and also injuring the bouncer.
- Graves sought workers’ compensation benefits for the gunshot injuries, alleging they occurred in the course of employment.
- The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found Graves not credible except as to the fact of being shot, credited testimony from PHA’s assistant police chief that Graves acted more like bar security than an officer, and denied the claim.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; Graves petitioned for review.

## Issues

1. Whether an off-duty PHA patrolman injured by gunfire after intervening in a disturbance at a private tavern was injured in the course and scope of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.
2. Whether the WCJ improperly relied on the assistant police chief’s testimony (including reliance on hearsay and on Graves’ account) when finding Graves acted as a civilian rather than performing police duties.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s order upholding the WCJ’s denial of benefits.
- Substantial evidence supported the WCJ’s finding that Graves was acting as a civilian in a purely social setting, not furthering PHA’s business or affairs.
- The court deferred to the WCJ’s credibility determinations and fact-finding and declined to reweigh the evidence.
- The court rejected the evidentiary challenge, emphasizing relaxed evidentiary rules in workers’ compensation proceedings and noting that key aspects of the challenged opinion were grounded in Graves’ own testimony.

## Legal Principles

- A Pennsylvania workers’ compensation claim requires proof that the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment, meaning the employee was actually engaged in furthering the employer’s business or affairs at the time of injury.
- Off-duty law-enforcement personnel may, in some circumstances, act within the scope of employment while off duty, but the inquiry is fact-driven and depends on whether the officer was actually performing police duties tied to the employer’s work.
- In workers’ compensation proceedings, evidentiary rules are relaxed; hearsay may be admitted and may support findings when sufficiently corroborated by competent evidence.
- The WCJ is the ultimate fact-finder in workers’ compensation cases, with authority to resolve evidentiary conflicts and determine witness credibility; appellate review is limited to whether findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether legal error occurred.

## Conclusion

The court held that an off-duty housing authority patrolman shot after intervening at a private tavern was not injured in the course of employment where the WCJ found he acted as a civilian in a social setting unrelated to the employer’s business, and it upheld the WCJ’s credibility determinations and use of testimony under relaxed evidentiary standards in workers’ compensation proceedings.


Graves v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Phila. Hous. Auth.), 983 A.2d 241 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)