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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 2002–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schiavone v. Avetagreen2 sentences2014Schiavone, supra at 867 (holding facts of record established employment contract exception to coming and going rule where employee was involved in accident during commute home from work in vehicle owned and insured by employer, employer paid for all costs of operating vehicle including repairs and fuel, and employee stated that one of purposes of vehicle was to benefit employer by providing employee with transportation to work and to allow him to travel to job sites which were between his office and his home). 2014See Schiavone, supra; Williams, supra; Leisure Line, supra. 6 Moreover, the Ridesharing Act addresses the type of vanpooling arrangement in which the MTP Appellees and McClernon participated, and expressly provides that the WCA does not apply to Kinney, where he was a passenger injured while participating in a vanpooling arrangement on his way to work. | 2 | 2 |
Leisure Line v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2022Appeal Bd. (Walker), 986 A.2d 901, 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added). 2013(Walker), 986 A.2d 901 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (holding that a flat per diem granted for travel expenses is not the kind of control necessary to satisfy the employment contract exception to the coming and going rule). | 1 | 3 |
Rox Coal Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2005The Commonwealth Court in Rox Coal, supra, dismissed an identical argument, holding: "Although Employer would have us interpret the phrase inserted into section 301(c)(1) as eliminating the employment contract exception to the "going and coming rule" ... we soundly reject Employer's position." Rox Coal, at 389. 2005The Commonwealth Court in Rox Coal, supra, dismissed an identical argument, holding: “Although Employer would have us interpret the phrase inserted into section 301(c)(1) as eliminating the employment contract exception to the “going and coming rule”... we soundly reject Employer’s position.” Rox Coal, at 389. | 1 | 2 |
Rox Coal Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2005See Rox Coal Co. v. WCAB (Snizaski), 768 A.2d 384, 386 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), affirmed, 570 Pa. 60 , 807 A.2d 906 (2002). 2005See Rox Coal Co. v. WCAB (Snizaski), 768 A.2d 384, 386 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), affirmed, 570 Pa. 60 , 807 A.2d 906 (2002). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kush v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
green
1 sentence2022Specific to the employment contract exception, we noted that the relevant issue was whether Power, not Vantage, “provided or controlled the means of [Kush’s] commute.” Id. at 1052 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Wachs v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2022Wachs, 884 A.2d at 862 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Williams v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2009In Williams v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Matco Electric Company, Inc.), 721 A.2d 1140 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), appeal denied, 559 Pa. 685 , 739 A.2d 547 (1999), this Court expressly reaffirmed Peer and Bechtel, holding that where travel allowances are not directly related to the expense or distance of the employee’s commute, and where the employer does not provide or control the means of transportation used, the contract cannot be deemed to include transportation to and from work. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Best v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
green
2 sentences2005The rationale behind that exception was articulated in McIntyre v. Strausser, 365 Pa. 507 , 76 A.2d 220 (1950), where this Court stated: Ordinarily the [Workers' Compensation] Acts have no application where the employe is going to or coming from his work. 2005The rationale behind that exception was artieu lated in McIntyre v. Strausser, 365 Pa. 507 , 76 A.2d 220 (1950), where this Court stated: Ordinarily the [Workers’ Compensation] Acts have no application where the employe is going to or coming from his work. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McIntyre v. STRAUSSER
green
2 sentences2005The rationale behind that exception was articulated in McIntyre v. Strausser, 365 Pa. 507 , 76 A.2d 220 (1950), where this Court stated: Ordinarily the [Workers' Compensation] Acts have no application where the employe is going to or coming from his work. 2005The rationale behind that exception was artieu lated in McIntyre v. Strausser, 365 Pa. 507 , 76 A.2d 220 (1950), where this Court stated: Ordinarily the [Workers’ Compensation] Acts have no application where the employe is going to or coming from his work. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.