Rana v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 170 A.3d 1279

Decedent (Mandeep Rana) was employed by Asha Corporation as a manager-in-training from Oct. 1, 2010 to Nov. 14, 2010, assigned primarily to the Wyncote store but expected to respond to operational issues at two other franchised stores (Hatfield and Horsham).
On Nov. 12, 2010, after receiving a voicemail that a Hatfield kitchen employee fell ill, Decedent offered to investigate; while driving to Hatfield with a coworker he was in a fatal car accident two days later from injuries sustained.
Claimants (Decedent’s parents) filed a fatal claim petition; a WCJ found Decedent was on a special assignment/furthering employer’s business at the time of the accident and awarded benefits, including medical expense payment and DPW lien reimbursement.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed, concluding Decedent was performing regular job duties (thus subject to the going-and-coming rule) and did not address other employer arguments; Claimants appealed.
The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether Decedent was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident and whether any going-and-coming exception applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Decedent was in course and scope of employment when injured en route to Hatfield	Decedent was on a special assignment/furthering employer’s business by responding to an operational problem; compensable	Employer: returning to stores after hours was a normal, routine part of duties (not a special mission) and Decedent had a fixed place of employment	Court reversed Board: Decedent was acting in scope of employment — traveling employee presumption applies and, alternatively, was on a special assignment
Whether Decedent had a fixed place of employment (affecting commuting rule)	Claimants: no fixed place of employment given assignment across stores and short tenure; thus traveling employee presumption applies	Employer: Decedent regularly worked across three locations, so had a fixed place of employment (citing Davis)	Court: Insufficient evidence Decedent regularly worked at Hatfield/Horsham during six-week tenure — treated as traveling employee; presumption of acting for employer was not rebutted
Whether remand is required to address other factual/legal issues the Board declined to decide	Claimants sought full benefits as decided by WCJ	Employer raised challenges to wage calculation, reciprocity with India, dependency, subrogation, and DPW lien	Court remanded for the Board to address these unresolved issues because Employer was not an aggrieved party and those matters remain undecided

Rox Coal Co. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Snizaski), 768 A.2d 384 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (articulates the going-and-coming rule and exceptions)
Peer v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (B & W Const.), 503 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (explains exceptions where travel continues course of employment)
Davis v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Foodarama), 398 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (fixed place of employment analysis where employee regularly worked multiple employer locations)
Jamison v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Gallagher Home Health Services), 955 A.2d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (distinguishes traveling vs. stationary employees for scope of employment)
Holler v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tri Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc.), 104 A.3d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (tests for traveling employee and presumption of employment during travel)
Simko v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Steel Corp-Edgar Thomson Works), 101 A.3d 1239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (liberal construction of "furtherance of the business" under the Act)
City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Stewart), 728 A.2d 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (special assignment/on-call employee qualifies for exception)
Whelen v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (F.H. Sparks Co. of Pa., Inc.), 532 A.2d 65 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (scope of appellate review of administrative adjudication)