Root v. W.C.A.B

10 Citing cases

  1. Reardon v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1724 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 31, 2012)

    To prove that he "regularly works at or from" his employer's Pennsylvania office, the claimant must show that he works at that office on a regular basis, not just periodically. Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263, 1265-66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Stated otherwise, the claimant "must prove that he or she works from the Pennsylvania location as a rule, not as the exception." Id. at 1266 (emphasis added).

  2. Waziry v. All. Express

    859 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 12, 2022)

    To show that an employee regularly works at or from an employer's place of business, he must prove that "he worked from the Pennsylvania location as a rule, not as the exception." Atkins, 651 A.2d at 699 (citing Root v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). In Root, 636 A.2d 1263, an employee was injured in an automobile accident in New Jersey after attending a sales meeting at the employer's Philadelphia office.

  3. Goldberg v. W.C.A.B

    696 A.2d 263 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    Because of these and other significant distinctions, Loomer is inapposite to this case. More recently, in Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 161 Pa. Commw. 291, 636 A.2d 1263, appeal denied, 538 Pa. 678, 649 A.2d 678 (1994), the Court expounded upon the definition of "principally localized." The claimant in Root, a New Jersey resident, was hired by U.S. Plywood Corporation as a sales service representative and worked in the employer's Philadelphia office from October 1983 through October 1985. Thereafter, she was promoted to the position of field sales representative to service the New Jersey territory and no longer serviced customers in Philadelphia.

  4. Khan v. Parsons Glob. Servs., Ltd.

    428 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's grant of summary judgment where defendant filed summary judgment motion before any discovery had taken place

    The New York Court of Appeals explained that this result would obtain even if the claimant were hired in New York; in other words, a New York contract that creates a fixed-state employment outside of New York does not confer upon the employee the status of being a "traveling employee" from New York and hence such an employee is not covered by the state's workers' compensation law. Id.; see also Spomer v. Westron Corp., 35 A.D.2d 621, 312 N.Y.S.2d 730 (N.Y.App.Div. 1970); Root v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 291, 636 A.2d 1263 (1994). These holdings accord with the views of the authors of the leading treatise on workers' compensation that when "regular employment becomes centralized and fixed so clearly in another state that any return to the original state would itself only be casual, incidental and temporary by comparison," then the employee ceases to be considered to be "traveler" from the original state.

  5. McIlvaine Trucking v. W.C.A.B

    570 Pa. 662 (Pa. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the parties' choice-of-law agreement as relating to workers' compensation was appropriately avoided where it offended state public policy as reflected in express provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act

    Such interpretation is also reflected in the commentary to the model workmen's compensation law, from which Section 305.2 was drawn.See also Meyer v. WCAB (Raytheon Co.), 776 A.2d 338 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001); Owens v. WCAB (G.D. Leasing), 769 A.2d 1220 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001); Lambie v. WCAB (Curry Lumber Co.), 736 A.2d 67 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999); Goldberg, 696 A.2d at 263; Atkins v. WCAB (Geo-Con, Inc.), 651 A.2d 694 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994); Creel, 164 Pa. Cmwlth. at 508, 643 A.2d at 784; Root v. WCAB (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 161 Pa. Cmwlth. 291, 636 A.2d 1263 (1994); Hiller v. WCAB (Deberardinis), 131 Pa. Cmwlth. 189, 569 A.2d 1024 (1990); Phizer, Inc. v. WCAB (Gresham), 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 319, 568 A.2d 286 (1989); Rock v. WCAB (Youngstown Cartage Co.), 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 491, 500 A.2d 183 (1985); cf. Robert M. Neff, 155 Pa. Cmwlth. at 51, 624 A.2d at 731-32 (holding that Section 305.2(b) does not permit agreements vesting exclusive jurisdiction over workers' compensation claims in another state). In addressing arguments similar to those presented here, the L.R. Wilson court described the operation of Section 305.2(d)(5) as:

  6. Gerry v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1161 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 9, 2016)

    Claimant picks up mail and submits driver logs and other paperwork at ABBA's Chambersburg location, but the vast majority of his work is transporting cranes outside of ABBA's Chambersburg location. See Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Plywood Corporation), 636 A.2d 1263, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (finding that a claimant's employment was not principally located in Pennsylvania when the claimant "started and ended every work day in her home/office in New Jersey" and "was required to attend only monthly sales meetings and other sporadic functions at Employer's Philadelphia office"); Minus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (TastyKake Baking Company), 496 A.2d 1340, 1342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (holding that because the claimant's "actual daily duties do not require him to work from the [Pennsylvania] office" his employment cannot be said to be principally localized in Pennsylvania). Additionally, Section 305.2(d)(4)(iii) does not provide jurisdiction over Claimant's workers' compensation claim because Claimant is not domiciled in Pennsylvania.

  7. Greenawalt v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bristol Envtl., Inc.

    91 A.3d 305 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    We stated, “the facts of this case establish that [the] [c]laimant's work in Pennsylvania was not the rule but, rather, the exception.” Id., Slip Op. at 8–9, 2012 WL 8689529 at *3;see also Root v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 291, 636 A.2d 1263 (1994) (claimant with New Jersey sales territory who spent majority of her time working in New Jersey, but had some occasional contact with employer's Philadelphia office, was not considered principally localized in Pennsylvania).Further, the WCJ correctly determined the various jobs Claimant previously performed for Bristol did not establish a continuous employment relationship for purposes of determining where Claimant's employment was principally localized.

  8. Kolobok, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    No. 1751 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Mar. 19, 2013)

    This Court has held that merely receiving supervisory direction from a Pennsylvania office, where daily duties do not require a presence in Pennsylvania is not a sufficient connection to confer jurisdiction. Minus; see also Root v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). The fact that Claimant may have received assignments from the Feasterville, Pennsylvania headquarters and occasionally worked at Pennsylvania job sites is insufficient to establish that Claimant regularly worked from the Pennsylvania office.

  9. Macomber v. W.C.A.B

    837 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding employment was principally localized in New Jersey when the employer had a place of business in that state and each day the claimant went to that location to pick up his truck, he got his orders there, and returned to that site at the end of the day

    The record is clear that, in the case sub judice, Claimant did not regularly work at or from any finite Pennsylvania location. Although his relationship with Pennsylvania is arguably less attenuated than that in Minus, where the employee did not even live in this state, as the previously recited facts demonstrate, it is still minimal from an employment standpoint. See also Holland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pep Boys), 586 A.2d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1990) (where a claimant truck driver began virtually every working day from a location in New Jersey. Because his routes also took him through several other states, so that he was in Pennsylvania, alone, 26% of the days he worked and in Pennsylvania and other states an additional 20% of the time, Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction over the claim); Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 538 Pa. 678, 649 A.2d 678 (1994) (where the claimant/salesperson was required to attend only monthly sales meetings and other "sporadic functions" at the employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office, these "periodic contacts" were insufficient to establish that the claimant "regularly worked at or from" the Philadelphia location. A claimant must prove "that he or she works from the Pennsylvania location as a rule, not as the exception."

  10. Lambie v. W.C.A.B

    736 A.2d 67 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 7 times

    Here, Claimant has failed to prove that he worked at the Pennsylvania location as a rule, not as the exception. Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Plywood Corp.), 636 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 538 Pa. 678, 649 A.2d 678 (1994). Claimant has also not met his burden of proving that he falls within (iii) which requires that he be domiciled in Pennsylvania and that he spend a substantial part of his working time in Pennsylvania. Although Claimant is domiciled in Pennsylvania, he did not spend a substantial part of his working time in Pennsylvania.