for the death of each employe, by an injury in the course of his employment, and such compensation shall be paid in all cases by the employer, without regard to negligence.... Provided, That no compensation shall be paid when the injury or death is intentionally self inflicted, or is caused by the employe’s violation of law, including, but not limited to, the illegal use of drugs, but the burden of proof of such fact shall be upon the employer.... 77 P.S. § 431 (emphasis added). Subsequently, by letter dated June 17, 1997, Rox Coal raised a second affirmative defense, claiming that Decedent’s death was caused by a violation of company policy or order regarding the use of company vehicles. See Nevin Trucking v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Murdock), 667 A.2d 262 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (<HOLDING>); Dickey v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Company,
holding that injuries sustained by an employee while changing a tire were not compensable where inter alia performing repairs was expressly prohibited by employer and the employee ignored a communication from the employer that the tire problem was to be remedied in a professional tire shop holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work recognizing that a foreign company as a special employer under the lent employee doctrine was subject to arizonas workers compensation statutes for injuries sustained by an employee