Photo: Master1305/Shutterstock.com

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to determine whether an injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on the way home from a work-sponsored social event is covered under the state's Workers' Compensation Act.

A potential ruling in the claimant's favor could cause Pennsylvania employers to think twice before hosting after-hours employee get-togethers.

The justices granted allocatur in Peters v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Cintas) after the Commonwealth Court affirmed rulings by a workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board that claimant Jonathan Peters was not entitled to benefits for injuries he sustained in a crash following a happy hour with his co-workers.

In July 2019, a Commonwealth Court en banc panel, citing language from the state Superior Court's 1966 decision in Maher v. Hallmark Cards, ruled 5-2 that once Peters passed the exit for his house on his way from the area where he was working as a traveling salesman to a work-sponsored happy hour at the Tilted Kilt, his "'homeward trip'" from his place of employment had ended.

Therefore, the majority said, Peters was no longer within the course and scope of his employment by the time he arrived at the Tilted Kilt.

"Claimant clearly had the option of avoiding any hazards simply by choosing to take the exit home as opposed to bypassing his exit to attend happy hour," Judge Anne Covey wrote for the majority. "Under the circumstances, claimant's travel from the Tilted Kilt to his home cannot be considered in the course and scope of his employment."

Covey was joined in full by Judges Patricia McCullough, Christine Fizzano Cannon and Ellen Ceisler and joined in the result by Judge Michael Wojcik.

The majority also sided with the WCJ regarding Peters' argument that attendance at the happy hour was mandatory.

The WCJ's opinion stated, "This [WCJ] had the opportunity to review the bearing and demeanor of claimant, and while it is unfortunate claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 27, 2015, his representations that the event was, in his mind, mandatory at the Tilted Kilt that evening is rejected in light of the more credible testimony of his colleagues."

Covey said that accepting Peters' argument that the happy hour was mandatory "would require this court to reverse the WCJ's credibility determination that claimant was not required to attend happy hour."

"The law expressly prohibits an appellate court from taking such action," Covey said.

Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, arguing: "Based on our precedent, I cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that driving by one's exit home on a highway to attend an event organized and paid for by one's employer is of such a 'pronounced nature' to constitute abandonment of one's employment or is 'wholly foreign' to one's employment."

"Here, claimant attended the employer-sponsored social event at the Tilted Kilt immediately following his last sales appointment," Jubelirer said. "Employer paid for appetizers and drinks. Whether claimant voluntarily attended the event does not sever the ties to employer. Nor does the fact that the event's purpose was more social than business related."

Wojcik penned a concurring opinion, noting that while he believed the question of whether the happy hour took place at a location before or after the highway exit to Peters' home was irrelevant, the WCJ's finding that attendance was voluntary meant Peters was ineligible for benefits.

On Jan. 8, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on two questions: "What constitutes an abandonment of employment such that a traveling employee is not entitled to benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act?" and "Is an injury compensable under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act when an employee is injured while returning home after attending a work-sponsored social event?"

Counsel for Peters, Alexis Berg-Townsend of Cohen, Feeley, Altemose & Rambo in Whitehall, could not immediately be reached for comment on the Supreme Court's allocatur grant; nor could counsel for Peters' employer, Cintas Corp., Kathleen Pochettino of Cipriani & Werner in Philadelphia.