An attorney representing a man injured while on his way home from a work-sponsored happy hour urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to define the standards for “traveling employee” in the workers’ compensation context and to make clear what the standards are for the compensable injuries they suffer.

“This case is somewhat unusual, and also somewhat not unusual,” Havertown, Pennsylvania, attorney Daniel Siegel told the justices during the argument session Wednesday in Peters v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Cintas). “Dealing with traveling employees who do not have a fixed place of work is a very common situation in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.”

This content has been archived.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]