Horrific MVA in Company Truck Merits Benefits for Seasonal Worker

Hatboro, PA (WorkersCompensation.com)–When employers pay for and control an employee’s means of transportation to or from a jobsite, they may be exposing themselves to potential worker’s compensation claims. 

That’s what happened in Bark v. Sooner Steel, LLC, No. 540 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 03/21/22), where a seasonal employee for a company that installed rebar for in-ground swimming pools woke up in the hospital with a brain contusion, various fractures, and other injuries. 

Earlier that day, when the owner’s son picked him up to take him to the jobsite in New Jersey, he surely wasn’t expecting to be in a major accident.  

Likely, he was also not expecting that, with his various contusions and fractures, he would have to fight for benefits in the wake of the crash. But that was the case. Both a workers' compensation judge and appeals board decided against him. Why? The accident, they said, didn’t occur in the course and scope of his employment. 

In reviewing those decisions, the court explained that typically, an injury that occurs while travelling to and from work is not compensable because it doesn’t occur in the course and scope of employment. That rule is typically referred to as “the going and coming rule.” But an exception applies where transportation to and from work is part of the employment contract. 

The court conceded that there was no evidence of a written contract in this case. But the absence of a written contract isn’t determinative, the court stated. Further, the court noted it had an obligation to consider the circumstances as a whole in determining whether the contract exception applied. Here, there were two major red flags indicating that it did. 

1. The employer provided or controlled the means of the worker’s commute. 

First, the court noted that employer provided and controlled the means of the employee’s transportation. In fact, the court observed, the company’s owner instructed his son, another employee, to pick up the worker from his home and take him to the job site. He also instructed his son to transport the worker home. Moreover, he supplied a company truck for the purpose. 

2. The employer paid the worker for his travel time. 

Second, the worker was paid additional money for travel time, the court explained. The worker also linked the travel allowance he was paid to the actual expense and time involved in the trip. He did this by pointing out that the owner acknowledged paying different amounts of money for specific “zones,” determined by their distance from the owner’s location.  

The court held that the employment contract exception to the "going and coming rule" applied under the circumstances. It therefore reversed the worker’s compensation judge and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Forms, email updates, legal, regulatory, and compliance information from Pennsylvania and 52 other jurisdictions across the U.S. can be found on WorkCompResearch.com.