Holler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
104 A.3d 68
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant (Dane R. Holler) was a cable technician who picked up assignments and equipment at Employer’s facility each morning after reporting by biometric thumb scan, then spent the day traveling to customer sites using a company vehicle he took home each night.
- Employer permitted morning use of the company vehicle to drive to the facility but prohibited nonwork use, passengers, and others driving the vehicle.
- On August 13, 2010, while driving the company vehicle to the Employer’s facility before the workday began, Claimant crashed and sustained severe injuries and could not return to work.
- Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim; the WCJ found Claimant had a fixed place of work and denied benefits under the going-and-coming rule; the Board affirmed.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed, holding Claimant was a traveling employee (no fixed place of work), exempt from the going-and-coming rule, and his injuries en route to the facility were within the course and scope of employment; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was injured in the course and scope of employment | Holler: He had no fixed place of work and was furthering Employer’s business when injured, so injury is compensable | Employer: Travel to workplace is ordinary commuting; Claimant had a fixed place of work so going-and-coming rule applies | Held: Claimant was a traveling employee (no fixed place of work); presumption he was in course of employment when injured while driving to the facility; injury compensable |
| Applicability of the going-and-coming rule exceptions | Holler: Second exception (no fixed place of work) applies; also argued first (contractual transportation) and fourth (furthering business) | Employer: Maintained Claimant had a fixed workplace and thus the going-and-coming rule bars recovery | Held: Court applied the second exception (traveling employee); did not decide other exceptions |
| Burden to overcome presumption for traveling employee | Holler: Presumption that travel was within employment applies | Employer: Could rebut presumption by showing Claimant abandoned employment by conduct unrelated to work | Held: Employer did not rebut presumption; no evidence of abandonment or conduct foreign to employment |
| Whether limited initial stop at employer’s facility is dispositive | Holler: Short stop to pick up work items does not create a fixed workplace | Employer: Emphasized reporting to facility by thumb scan | Held: Initial stop is not dispositive; minimal time at office and daily travel to customer sites show no fixed workplace |
Key Cases Cited
- Wachs v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 884 A.2d 858 (Pa. 2005) (sets the going-and-coming rule and four exceptions)
- Jamison v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 955 A.2d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (a traveling employee is exempt from the going-and-coming rule)
- Beaver & Casey, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Soliday), 661 A.2d 40 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (factors for determining traveling employee status)
- Toal Assocs. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sternick), 814 A.2d 837 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (central office presence is not dispositive of fixed workplace)
- Peterson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991) (Act is remedial and to be liberally construed in favor of workers)
- Roman v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dep’t of Envtl. Res.), 616 A.2d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (course of employment broader for traveling employees)
- Southland Cable Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Emmett), 598 A.2d 329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (cable installers often fit traveling-employee category)