![Christian Petrucci of the Law Offices of Christian Petrucci.](https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2021/07/Christian-Petrucci-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Supreme Court Takes Up Traveling Employee Doctrine in 'Peters'
On Nov. 16, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the matter of Peters v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cintas), addressed for the first time the traveling employee doctrine, thus establishing the criteria under the act for workers in the mobile workforce who are injured on the job.
November 18, 2021 at 11:44 AM
7 minute read
On Nov. 16, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the matter of Peters v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cintas), addressed for the first time the traveling employee doctrine, thus establishing the criteria under the act for workers in the mobile workforce who are injured on the job. This rule, which is an important touchstone in the litany of "course and scope" issues addressed last month in this space, holds that when a "traveling employee" (one without a fixed place of employment such as a mobile phlebotomist) is injured after commencing with the business of the employer, it is presumed that the worker is furthering the employer's business at the time of an injury unless the employer is able to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that the employee's actions prior to the injury were so foreign to and removed from the worker's usual employment that they constituted an abandonment of that employment. While the rule has been consistently applied by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in January 2020, the Supreme Court granted the claimant's petition for allowance of appeal in a traveling employee case, framing the issues as follows:
|- What constitutes an abandonment of employment such that a traveling employee is not entitled to benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act?
- 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.
Recalling the facts from the en banc decision in Peters v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cintas), 214 A.3d 738 (Pa. Commw. 2019), the claimant was a traveling salesman for his employer Cintas, and was injured in a motor vehicle accident after attending a social event organized and paid for by the employer at a local pub. The event, which took place at the end of the claimant's workday, was among the type that was regularly held by Cintas during "sales blitzes." On the date he was injured, the claimant finished his workday and then drove to the social event, famously passing the exit for his home, as the pub was beyond that exit. The motor vehicle accident took place after the event was over, while the claimant was driving home. The workers' compensation judge (WCJ) denied the claim petition and the board affirmed, both reasoning that the claimant failed to prove that he was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident because the social event was voluntary.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/38/82/ff7b611443519b770a19692401f4/weilheimer-neary-henry-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
![The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal' The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/01/Philadelphia-City-Hall-08-767x633.jpg)
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read![Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ba/3b/495247be47fe8b0ba5fcd60e024b/citizens-bank-sign-767x633.jpg)
Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute read![Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2024/07/18-wheeler-semi-truck-767x633.jpg)
Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
- 2Wrongful Death Case Against Adult Daycare Sparks Call for State Regulation
- 3Attorney Claims He Was Denied Firearm Carry Permit Because of His Views on Middle East Conflict
- 4Judges’ ‘Unretirements’ After Trump's Win Spark Dubious Ethics Complaints
- 5High Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250