Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
William F. Rittner Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2017Although William F. Rittner Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Rittner), 464 A.2d 675, 678-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), involved two exceptions to the going and coming rule (special circumstances such that employee was furthering employer’s business and the employee’s employment contract included transportation) we find it to be instructive. 2017Although William F. Rittner Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Rittner), 464 A.2d 675, 678-79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), involved two exceptions to the going and coming rule (special circumstances such that employee was furthering employer’s business and the employee’s employment contract included transportation) we find it to be instructive. | 2 | 2 |
Roman v. WCAB (DEPT. OF ENV. RES.)green2 sentences2014Res.), 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 628 , 616 A.2d 128, 130 (1992), and a traveling employee is exempt from the going and coming rule, Jamison, 955 A.2d at 498 n. 5. 2014Res.), 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 628 , 616 A.2d 128, 130 (1992), and a traveling employee is exempt from the going and coming rule, Jamison, 955 A.2d at 498 n. 5. | 2 | 2 |
Biddle v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2005Appeal Bd. (Thomas Mekis & Sons, Inc.), 539 Pa.343, 652 A.2d 807, 808-09 (1995). 2005Appeal Bd. (Thomas Mekis & Sons, Inc.), 539 Pa.343, 652 A.2d 807, 808-09 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Holler v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2018There are exceptions to the going and coming rule, which include where: an employment agreement “includes transportation to and from work”; the employee “has no fixed place of work”; the employee is injured while on a special assignment for the employer; or special circumstances indicate that the employee “was furthering the business of the employer.” Id. 2018There are exceptions to the going and coming rule, which include where: an employment agreement “includes transportation to and from work”; the employee “has no fixed place of work”; the employee is injured while on a special assignment for the employer; or special circumstances indicate that the employee “was furthering the business of the employer.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Brown v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2021The court rejected the claimant’s argument, concluding that the going and coming rule was not implicated in the case because the “[c]laimant was neither going to nor coming from work when she was injured.” Id. [J-71-2020] - 6 Notwithstanding the inapplicability of the going and coming rule, the Commonwealth Court did not end its analysis there. 2021See Brown, 588 A.2d at 1016 ; see also Wachs, 884 A.2d at 861 . [J-71-2020] - 20 we held we consider an employee on work-related travel to be in the course of his or her employment during the travels unless there was evidence that the employee ceased to be acting in furtherance of his or her employer’s business and affairs. | 1 | 1 |
Wachs v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2021See Brown, 588 A.2d at 1016 ; see also Wachs, 884 A.2d at 861 . [J-71-2020] - 20 we held we consider an employee on work-related travel to be in the course of his or her employment during the travels unless there was evidence that the employee ceased to be acting in furtherance of his or her employer’s business and affairs. | 1 | 1 |
Rox Coal Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2005See id. at 389 & n. 14 (citing William F. Rittner Co. v. WCAB (Rittner), 76 Pa. Cmwlth. 596, 600-01, 464 A.2d 675, 678 (1983)). [3] Appellee does not argue that any other exception applies presently. 2005See id. at 389 & n. 14 (citing William F. Rittner Co. v. WCAB (Rittner), 76 Pa.Cmwlth. 596, 600-01 , 464 A.2d 675, 678 (1983)). . | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2002Peterson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 528 Pa. 279, 284-86 , 597 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1991) (citing Setley v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kawecki Berylco Industries), 69 Pa.Cmwlth. 241 , 451 A.2d 10, 11 (1982)). 3 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714. 4 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361. 5 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301. 6 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 4581. 7 . 2002Peterson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 528 Pa. 279, 284-86 , 597 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1991) (citing Setley v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kawecki Berylco Industries), 69 Pa.Cmwlth. 241 , 451 A.2d 10, 11 (1982)). 3 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714. 4 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361. 5 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301. 6 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 4581. 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Setley v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2002Peterson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 528 Pa. 279, 284-86 , 597 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1991) (citing Setley v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kawecki Berylco Industries), 69 Pa.Cmwlth. 241 , 451 A.2d 10, 11 (1982)). 3 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714. 4 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361. 5 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301. 6 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 4581. 7 . 2002Peterson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (PRN Nursing Agency), 528 Pa. 279, 284-86 , 597 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1991) (citing Setley v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kawecki Berylco Industries), 69 Pa.Cmwlth. 241 , 451 A.2d 10, 11 (1982)). 3 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714. 4 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361. 5 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301. 6 . 75 Pa.C.S. § 4581. 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Wells Fargo Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Wells Fargo Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pacheco), 764 A.2d 1147 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jamison v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2014Res.), 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 628 , 616 A.2d 128, 130 (1992), and a traveling employee is exempt from the going and coming rule, Jamison, 955 A.2d at 498 n. 5. 2014Because Claimant had no fixed place of work, he was a traveling employee and, thus, exempt from the going and coming rule. 5 Jamison, 955 A.2d at 498 n. 5. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Rox Coal Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2002The Commonwealth Court did not address the waiver argument, “choosing instead to take this opportunity to dispel any doubt as to the continued validity of the employment contract exception to the going and coming rule.” Rox Coal, 768 A.2d at 389 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wolfe v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence1991Employer argues that Wolfe v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 65 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 97, 442 A.2d 12 (1982) is analogous to the facts before our Court. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.