Last month, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court saw fit to issue a precedential decision in the matter of Bark v. Sooner Steel, (Workers' Compensation Appeal Board), thereby thrusting the so-called "coming-and-going rule" to the forefront of workers' compensation law. As is well known, commuting to and from work is not considered to be within the course and scope of one's employment. However, there are exceptions to the coming-and-going rule, outlined in the 1991 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Peterson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991). These exceptions are:

• the employment contract includes transportation to and/or 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 further the business of the employer.

The Bark decision, like most coming-and-going rule cases, offers a refresher on many of the relevant factors that go into whether someone injured in an apparent commute to or from work can still be eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits. It also reinforces the fact-specific nature of such cases.