*1 597 A.2d PETERSON, Aрpellant, JoAnn APPEAL BOARD COMPENSATION WORKMEN’S (PRN AGENCY), Appellee. NURSING Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued March 1991. 7, 1991.
Decided Oct. Reargument Denied Reconsideration 2, 1991. Dec. *2 Tarasi, Hendricks, M. Jr. and John D. Tarasi &
Louis Johnson, P.C., Pittsburgh, appellant. Baldasare, G. Co- Pamela Klucher, Lawrence
Harry J. Gordon, Pittsburgh Bosick, & chenour, Pietragallo, W.C.A.B., Harrisburg, Haigh, Secretary, Norman R. appellee. FLAHERTY, LARSEN, C.J., NIX,
Before CAPPY, JJ. ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and McDERMOTT, THE COURT OPINION OF PAPADAKOS, Justiсe. of the Commonwealth from an order appeal
This is an of the Worker’s affirming the order Court dismissing Appellant, the claim (Board), Appeal Board Peterson, compensation benefits. for worker’s JoAnn employed by nurse practical a licensed Appellant, leg (PRN), fractured her left lee, Nursing Agency PRN *3 September on in accident left ankle an automobile 19, 1980, workplace. assigned to her travelling hearings, a worker’s evidentiary Following separate four com- worker’s referee awarded the benefits, Pennsylvania in the Work- provided as pensation after he (Act) seq., 77 P.S. et Act er’s § in of her duties the course concluded that the Therefore, a conclusion the accident occurred. when entitled to total law, that the claimant was he determined 19, 1980, and commencing September benefits disability the future. indefinitely into continuing the Board which determined appealed to Appellee were, in actuality, оf Fact” “Findings the Referee’s concluded that the of Law” and “Conclusions for the It remanded the case disability. not entitled to total completed. function to be fact-finding certified the parties prior expense, To save time and prior record The referee reviewed record and exhibits. depоsition testimony, including and all additional twenty and a Appellant’s supervisor Blakeley, Gina M. Thereafter, in PRN. he framed his shareholder percent fact findings own and conclusions law which we have Appellee, Nursing Agency, summarized PRN below. although provider, it is not a health care entered into homes, nursing and agreements hospitals, pri- with various individuals, purpose supplying registered vate for the nurses, assistants, nurses, nursing licensed to practical in those as their needs arose. At its office down- parties maintained Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Appellee town its records, from indi- telephone received calls institutions and staff, dispatched emрloyees its its to requesting viduals area. throughout Allegheny County various locations require employees report did not its to to its office Appellee instead, would contact its assignment; Appellee employ- homes, one of the assignment, ees at their week advance inquire they accepting аs to whether were interested assignment. employee accepted When an a work instructed the where to assignment, Appellee work, work, report report when to arrive uniform.
Moreover, Appellee provide transportation did not its for their work-place, employees it did not reimburse spent and it did not include time commut- expenses, travel from ing assigned workplace computation to and an gross wages. Employees paid of an were employee’s rate, signed from the time in at the hourly they calculated assigned work-place they signed to the time out of that work-place hours tоtaled work-place. Work were figures used those Appellee, and forwarded to the who its compute employee’s gross wages. Appellee paid *4 check, it made the deductions. employees by necessary after if Appellant The contacted the and asked she Appelleе 19, 1980, assignment September would a new on at work Montefiore 11:00 to 7:30 a.m. shift —and p.m. —the Appellant she did not instruct the accepted. Appellee any stops, any messages, pick up any to make to deliver to materials, prior service on of PRN perform any behalf fact, In at Montefiore. was repоrting Appellant from her any free to select route to and worksite. 23, 1980, informed September On about accident, in an she had been Appellee that she involved however, work; she would be unable injured, related Appellee injuries failed to that her were she advise in the her employment, her or that were incurred consequence, Appellee her As of employment. course Notice, that Injury. not file an of Employer’s Report did not come until the a work related did injury, this was 8, 1982, a date petition filed claim on October her following than the automobile accident. greater years two evidence, on this thе referee found: Based notice 1) give any failed to work- [Appellant] ... [T]he injury required said days related injury within Act; 311 of by Section her
2) employer inform [Appellant] failed to ... [T]he Act; 312 of the required by as is Section any injury scope acting within the 3) was not [Appellant] ... [T]he September her on injury her at time of employmеnt 1980; 19, way acting not in
4) [Appellant] of her at the time employer’s furtherance of her business 19, 1980; and, on injury September during the 5) injury did not [Appellant] suffer Septem- with the defendant on course therefore, 19, compensa- is not entitled to ber tion benefits. decision, 28, 1986.) The claim was then
(Referee’s January (Id.) to the Board for re- Appellant appealed dismissed. view. Ap- called the Blakeley
Gina testified it September offices to inform pellee’s Monday on that the that she had been an auto accident and accident Hospital. en to Montefiore occurred while she was route to notice: following regard 631 states the Section knowledge shall of the occur- Unless have shall due until rence ... be and, given such notice given, such notice be unless be *5 284 twenty days
within one hundred and after the occurrence compensation of the shall be allowed. injury, 77 631. This uncontradicted evidence P.S. established § allegation gave employеr that she her notice of Appellant’s 120 day period. the accident well within the The Board decision, the referee’s because it found the reversed above findings the referee’s testimony to be irreconcilable with fact.
Next,
whether,
not,
the Board considered'
or
injured
scope
employment.
within
rule is thаt an
is not
general
liable
received off the
travelling
employer’s premise
while
Co.,
from work. Eberle v. Union Dental
112,
390 Pa.
Co.,
Butrin v. Manion Steel
(1957);
A.2d 559
361 Pa.
Co.,
George
Hohman v.
H. Soffel
(1949);
While ar- that her one gues exceptions conduct fits within the rule Setley recognized by Commonwealth Court Board, 69 Pa.Com- Compensation Appeal v. Workmen’s (1982). Setley represents monwealth Ct. codification of our in this area own law and stands for the proposition that sustained going
... to or cоming from work does not occur the course of employ- following ment unless one of the exceptions shown to exist:
1) claimant’s contract transporta- includes work; tion to and from
2) work; claimant has no fixed 3) special claimant is on a mission for employer; such that claimant was fur- *6 4) special circumstаnces are employer. thering the business of the A.2d at 11. Ct. at 451 Id., 69 Pa.Commonwealth trip to Montefiore Hospital asserts that her and for her that she special employer mission constituted a However, fixed, or permanent, place work. had at assignment and work disagreed found Board mission for “special did not сonstitute a Montefiore that the Although agreed Board employer”. fixed, work, it place of concluded had no permanent, lant Hence, day. each place she a fixed that had no different that the the Board concluded Hospi- travelled to Montefiore any employee other who thаn (of number exception each and determined two day, tal trav- to situations where only applies Setley) during workday. her els affirmed this decision. It con-
The Commonwealth Court compensable were not since Appellant’s injuries cluded that for her not reimbursement trans- her contract did include assertion pоrtation expenses, rejected Appellant’s mission, nothing because it found special that she was on Appellee’s to work. The special daily about a commute nothing that its dress at home was requirement employees incidental, work-related, performance more than the commute, argument the Appellant’s to a prior functions failed day that she had no fixed of work each because from during she did not travel location location workday. conclusion, In the court did not consider her other any employee, situation different from who trav- day, through elled to each her work at a day labоred office, then home at the end specific returned of the day. and, Allocatur this of the accepted
We to review area law now, reverse the decision of Commonwealth Court.
DISCUSSION begins have noted that our law already We with understanding that not liable its 286 compensation received off the
employer’s premises, while the travelling to or from rule work. This was first qualified case of Ziskind, Campagna Pa. 135 A. 124 (1926), where we extended the employer’s responsibility to the engaged beyond who is his employer’s premises See, further his employer’s business. Campagna, su- pra. An also exception was found to arise where therе some special for, undertaken duty and directed by, See, Butrin, supra. Yet, employer. must duty not be an act done for mere of the convenience employee, but order employer, express implied. See, Cronin Co., v. American Oil 298 A. (1929). *7 Likewise, a claimant considered to be within the course of travel, his his employment where which is an part essential of his employer’s business, work in furtherance of his See, Hohman, reimbursed by supra. employer. The its Appellee argument general rests upon rule and urges this court to classify this the same category other any employed by Montefiore Hospital. It that the does insists not fall within еxceptions. the created More specifically, lee argument illustrates its by raising following points: 1) assignment The to Montefiore constituted a work; 2) fixed place Appellee neither compensated transportation for her expenses, nor did it pay time; 3) her for her The Appellant’s journey travеl to work special did not constitute a mission since she exercised her right And, 4) to accept assignment; this work the Appel- lant’s of this acceptance assignment did not create any special circumstances wherein furthering she was her em- ployer’s According Appellee, business. to the all of its fall еmployees parameters general within rule unless the receives for compensation her travel. statement, To support this directs Appellee our atten- tion to cases interpreted Commonwealth Court. argument ignores
We this it reject because our test whether, for not, determining employeе’s injury is
287 compensation ques- law. the worker’s covered under for the compensated tion is not whether employment; hours of or after the before performed service fixed has a this claimant instead, the issue is whether must determining question, keep In we of work. Act is Compensation Worker’s Pennsylvania mind that the workеr, and, intended to benefit the in nature and remedial construed to effectuate therefore, liberally the Act must be Krawchuk v. objectives. Philadelphia its humanitarian 115, (1981); Co., 497 Pa. Workmen’s Electric Co., Mold 473 Overmyer Board v. Appeal Compensation (1977); v. Alden Kransky Pa. A.2d 689 Glen Coal 374 (1946); Co., A.2d 47 645 Ginther J.P. Co., (1943). 348 Pa. A.2d Graham Transfer Act Pennsylvania Worker’s dic shall tates, be liable “every injury each in the personal employee, to ... injury [for] Moreover, his 77 P.S. 431. course of ...” § The term ... shall be construed mean an “injury,” arising ... the course of his to an arising The term employment.... “injury course in this as used article ... shall employment,” his employe actually all sustained include in the furthеrance of the business or affairs of engaged *8 upon premises the employer, employer’s the whether elsewhere.... 411(1).
77 P.S. § record, Appellee, the of this we that Reviewing facts note to health supply personnel an business to care agency basis, a an of temporary inventory facilities on maintains personnel. Appel- When Montefiore contacted the lee, list an personnel it selected from its individual it be- particular the job lieved best suited for and directed the Hospital. to Montefiore travel attempt disguise of the true Regardless Appellee’s status, employees’ by assigning nature of its them work advance, the of the one facts matter assignments week remain the same: A temporary employee, who is employed by agency, an has a never fixed of place work. Conse- when the quently, agency employee assigned travels to an the workplace, furthering is of the business Therefore, conclude, agency. law, we as matter Appel- a work, lant had no fixed when she injured, occurred she injury while of her furtherance employer’s business. requires our
Accordingly, law that be awarded benefits.
Reversed case remanded to the Commonwealth Court disposition.1 further C.J., NIX, concurs in result.
FLAHERTY, J., opinion files a dissenting in which ZAPPALA, J., joins.
FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. The holds when majority is dispatched to one of a number of possible job sites his eligible employer, compensa- workmen’s tion injured benefits when he is en route to the job. This is not, been, has never and should not be the law. general rule, correctly expressed by the majority, is that if an is sustained injury going work, coming from not injury compensable. An exception this rule is that the employee may compen- be such sated for if his employment contract provides work; for transportation to and from if he has no fixed place work; if on special he is mission for employ- er; furthering or if he was of the employer. business Setley Board, Workmen’s Citing Appeal (1982), Pa.Commwlth.Ct. majority 1. Since the Commonwealth Court affirmed dismissal of the petition, subrogation lant’s claim it did not discuss or credit Appellant’s party against issues which arose out recovery third automobile, driver the other it nor did discuss the medical or paid work loss benefits to the under her no-fault own *9 policy. automobile insurance рlace in case had fixed the claimant this determines that therefore, was, eligible compen- for workmen’s and of work going in an sustained accident injuries sation benefits work. however, itself, case cites Davis Workmen’s Setley Board, Ct. Appeal Commonwealth (1979) as for its articulation authority a rule.” In the was cоming and Davis “going
the As supermarket Reading. who worked pharmacist contract, he required part employment Davis’s his operated by other stores well work at killed in an auto Bethlehem. Davis was Allentown and the to his returning from Bethlehem store accident while applied compen- and his wife for worker’s Reading hоme Although Commonwealth Court acknowl- sation benefits. rule, it on edged “going coming” and denied benefits the not grounds the that his were suffered his and he not fall within course of did rule,” coming including exceptions “going place exception. fixed work indistinguishable case is from Davis. Here present dispatched possible to оne of several That on to the injured way job. sites and was one site rather than another does job was sent to not had no fixed of work mean that meaning exception “going within rather, rule, concerns coming” exception rule. The from one site employees who are moved to another after to work at an initial site. they already begun have affirmed Court should be decision Commonwealth claim denied. ZAPPALA, J., dissenting opinion. joins