S. Fields v. WCAB (Carl G's Total Cleanouts)
1918 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Claimant Shawn Fields worked for Carl G’s Total Cleanouts performing commercial and residential demolition and removal work.
- After finishing work at a multiweek jobsite, Fields and coworker Herman Strother drove Employer’s truck to a scrapyard to dispose of demolition debris; the coworker planned to drop Fields at home and return the truck to Employer.
- While returning from the scrapyard in the Employer’s vehicle, the truck was in a motor-vehicle accident and Fields was injured.
- The WCJ found Fields credible but concluded he was commuting from a fixed jobsite and thus not in the course and scope of employment; the Board affirmed.
- Fields appealed to the Commonwealth Court; the court considered whether an exception to the going-and-coming rule applied because Fields was furthering Employer’s business by transporting debris to the scrapyard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury arose in course and scope of employment under the going-and-coming rule | Fields: Injured while performing job duty (disposal of debris in Employer’s vehicle) — thus furthering Employer’s business | Employer/Board: Fields was commuting from a fixed worksite; transporting home/vehicle return was personal commute | Held: Reversed — transporting debris to scrapyard in Employer vehicle was furthering Employer’s business, so exception to going-and-coming rule applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Inglis House v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Reedy), 634 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1993) (claimant bears initial burden to show injury arose in course and scope)
- Kmart Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Fitzsimmons), 748 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000) (premises not dispositive for course-and-scope inquiry)
- Wachs v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (American Office Systems), 884 A.2d 858 (Pa. 2005) (four exceptions to going-and-coming rule)
- Peterson v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991) (Act construed liberally; distinction when presence is due to employer’s business)
- Denny’s Restaurant v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Stanton), 597 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (distinguishing injuries incurred due to employer’s business vs. personal commute)
- Mansfield Brothers Painting v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (German), 72 A.3d 842 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (distinguished — claimant injured on commute from fixed site)