A basic tenant of workers’ compensation law is that commuting to and from work is not considered to be within the course and scope of one’s employment. Of course, like most legal principles, the so-called “coming and going rule” does have exceptions. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court identified four such exceptions in Peterson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991). Earlier this month, the Commonwealth Court in Kush v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Power Contracting), No. 1688 C.D. 2017 waded through a rather convoluted fact pattern to arrive at the simple conclusion that no exception to the coming and going rule existed in the case.

In Peterson, the exceptions to the coming and going rule were identified to be:

  • The employment contract includes transportation to and from work;
  • The claimant has no fixed place of work;
  • The claimant is on a “special assignment or mission” for the employer; or
  • Special circumstances are such that the claimant was furthering the business of the employer.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]