Flight Attendant Can't Obtain Benefits for Injury on Way to Chicago Hub

Philadelphia, PA (WorkersCompensation.com)–In Pennsylvania, a worker could be considered to be “in the course of employment” even if she is on the way to work. But as the airline attendant in Wormley v. Air Wisconsin Airlines, No. 89 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Comm’w Ct. 11/22/22) learned, that only applies in a narrow set of circumstances.

In Wormley, the attendant lived in Philadelphia, but was assigned to Chicago as her hub. She selected a flight to Chicago for the day prior to her shift, since none were available on the day of her shift. She planned to take a city train to the airport in Philadelphia.

On the day in question, she put on her work uniform. The airline did not require her to do so, but wearing it made it easier to get through airport security. Then she went to the train station in Philadelphia.

While walking on the train platform, the attendant moved to avoid another passenger and fell in the area between the platform and train, screaming in pain. She suffered injuries to her shoulder, leg, hip, back, and knee.

A worker’s compensation law judge denied her benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed that decision. Both reasoned that the attendant was not acting in the course of employment when she was injured.

On appeal, the attendant argued that she was injured on her employer’s premises.

The court explained that a claimant may be entitled to compensation if the injury occurs on the employer's premises. This occurs if the employee:

1. Is on the premises occupied or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer's business is being carried on;
2. Is required by the nature of his employment to be present on the employer's premises; and
3. Sustains injuries caused by a condition of the premises or by operation of the employer's business thereon.

The court added that whether am injury occurred on the employer's "premises" turns on whether the site of the accident is so connected with the employer's business as to form an integral part thereof. The critical factor, the court explained, is not the employer's title to or control over the area, but rather the fact that the employer had caused the area to be used by its employees in performance of their assigned tasks.

In ruling against the flight attendant, the appeals court cited the following factors:

• The train and its platform were not a place where the airline was carrying on its business. The attendant presented no evidence that the train station had any relation to the operation of her employer’s business or that her employer had any obligation to provide her with access to the train or transportation to the airport.
• The attendant was not required to be present on the platform due to the nature of her employment. Further, she chose to continue living in Philadelphia when the airline changed her hub to Chicago. Essentially, she was a commuting employee, and it was up to her to figure out how to get to work.
• The employer did not reimburse the attendant for any travel to work, and she could have chosen any means to get to the Philadelphia Airport, or, for that matter, to Chicago. This was not a case where trains were provided for employees by the company.
• The attendant was not entering or exiting her workplace within a reasonable time before or after her shift when the injury occurred.

The court affirmed the board’s determination that the attendant was not injured in the course of employment when she fell off the train platform.

For the latest from Pennsylvania and the rest of the U.S., turn to WorkCompResearch

Share This Article: