Your Commute To & From Work: Is It Covered Under Workers' Compensation?

The law in Pennsylvania, commonly referred to as “the coming and going rule,” holds that traveling to and from work is not in the course of employment. Mansfield Bros. Painting v. WCAB (German), 72 A.3d 842 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). There are, however, exceptions to this broad ruling. Those exceptions are:

• The worker has no fixed place of work.
• The worker is on a special assignment for the employer.
• The employment contract specifically included transportation to and from work.
• Unique circumstances in that the worker was furthering the business of the employer.

(Source): Peterson v. WCAB (PRN Nursing Agency), 597 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1991); Peer v. WCAB (B&W Constr.), 503 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth 1986).

Here are some real-life, practical examples of situations where commuting was found to be within the worker’s course of employment. A medical doctor was required to travel between two fixed places as part of her regular job duties. One day, while traveling between the two offices, she was injured. The Court found that because her job required her to travel between the two offices, she was within the course of her employment. Ruth Fam. Med. Ctr. v WCAB (Steinhouse), 718 A.2d 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

Another example involves a Pennsylvania State Trooper who was riding his motorcycle to work when another car making an illegal turn pulled right in front of him. The Trooper was injured as a result. What led the court to determine that the Trooper was in the course of his employment was his testimony that, prior to the impact, he had intended to arrest the other driver for the illegal turn. Pennsylvania State Police v. WCAB (Dick), 694 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth 1997).

The following are examples where commuting was not within the scope of employment, or where the worker’s employment terms did not include transportation. A worker for a painting company was assigned to one project for its entire duration and was therefore found to have a fixed place of employment. That worker sustained injuries while commuting from work, which were found not to be work-related. Mansfield Bros. Painting v. WCAB (German), 72 A.3d 842 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

In Fonder v. WCAB (Fox Integrated), 842 A.2d 512 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the worker fell asleep at the wheel on his way home after an exceptionally long shift, intending to sleep and prepare for his next shift. Although he suffered injuries from the motor vehicle accident, he did not qualify for benefits under any exception to the coming and going rule.

According to Bechtel Power Corp. v. WCAB (Postlethwait), 648 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), an employee’s injury suffered while traveling home from work was not in the course of employment. In this particular situation, even though the employee had a per diem travel allowance as provided by his union bargaining agreement, this was not sufficient to prove that transportation was included in that contract.

Every situation is different and unique, so the facts must be reviewed and analyzed to determine whether a traveling injury is covered by Pennsylvania workers’ compensation. It is best to consult an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer to help in this regard.