This is а workers’ compensation case arising out of an automobile accident. The commissioner found Claimant’s accident arose out of and in the course of employment and awardеd benefits. The appellate commission and the circuit court affirmed. The Carrier appеals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Facts
Danny Joe Wright is a self-employed heating and air сonditioning contractor. His brother is among his employees. Wright uses his own truck for business and uses it to carry his tools. It is used primarily for work.
General Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. contracted with Wright to install heating units in an apartment complex located in Charlotte, North Carolina. General Heating paid Wright $85 for each unit installed but did not compensate him for mileage and/or hotel expense. Initially both Wright and his emрloyee brother, who lived at Easley, South Carolina, stayed in a hotel two or three nights a week while working in Charlotte but resorted to commuting from Charlotte to Easley each day in order to save money.
The parties stipulate that Wright is covered under the Workers’ Compensation Law, having eleсted coverage under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-130 (Supp. 1990), which provides in part:
Any sole proprietor or partner of a business whose employees are eligible for benefits under this title may elect to be inсluded as employees [sic] under the worker’s compensation coverage of the business____
*333 On March 15, 1988, while driving home to Easley from Charlotte and before dropping off his brother, Wright had an accidеnt attempting to avoid an animal.
There are two issues on appeal: (1) whether this accidеnt arose out of and in the course of Wright’s employment and (2) whether the court erred in awarding him compensation for his mileage deduction on his Federal Income Tax Return.
Arising Out Of And In The Course Of Employment
Generally, injuries sustained going to and coming from the place of work do not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Sola v. Sunny Slope Farms,
(1) Where, in going to and returning from work, the means of transportation is provided by the employer, or the time that is consumed is paid for or included in wages; [and/or]
(2) Where the employee, on his way to or from his work, is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment.
Id.,
In order to receive сompensation the employee need not perform a duty he was expressly hired to do. “It is sufficient if the employee is engaged in a pursuit or undertaking consistent with the contract of hire and which in some logical manner pertains to or is incidental to his employment.”
Beam v. State Workmen’s Compensation Fund,
Wright was commuting in his truck which was usеd primarily for business, was commuting to maximize his profits, and was taking an employee home at the time оf the accident. The fact that Wright was an employee of himself does not change his rights under the law. As an employer he has the right to direct how the work is to be performed, and since he is also the employee, he is under his own direction. Had his employee/brother brought this action, the entitlemеnt to benefits would have been more apparent. Clearly the employee/ brother under the direction of Wright to commute each day to *334 and from Charlotte would have been coverеd. Therefore', Wright as his own employee is afforded similar rights.
Compensation For Mileage
The commission found Wright’s income for comрensation purposes was $14,060.00 per year. This sum included Wright’s net income in 1987 of $8,366.00 and $5,694.00 derived from Wright’s mileage dеduction on his Federal Income Tax Return. We find the commissioner erred in including the mileage deductiоn as part of Wright’s income.
Average weekly wage is defined as:
the earnings of the injured employee in the employment in which he was working at the time of the injury during the period of fifty-two weeks immediately preceding the date of the injury.
S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-40 (1976).
There are no South Carolina cases directly on the issue of expenses. Other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue. In
Baldwin v. Piedmont Woodyards,
Mileage reimbursements are generally not included in wages.
See, Glinka v. W.C.A.B. (Sears Roebuck and Co.),
75 Pa. Cmwlth. 504, 462 A. (2d) 909 (Pa. 1983) and
Sears Commercial Sales v. Davis,
Wright deducted business expеnses on his Federal Income Tax Return, including hotels, meals, tools, classes, and insurance. He deduсted mileage on the same form. We find that the *335 mileage deduction is no different from the other expenses of doing business; therefore, it should not be included as part of Wright’s income for the purposе of worker’s compensation.
Accordingly, we affirm the ruling that Wright is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and remand for a new determination of benefits to be paid.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.