Workers' Compensation Defense

The claimant contended that he sustained a work injury as a result of a fall from a shuttle which took him from a train station to the building where he had worked. According to the claimant, the injury occurred on the employer’s premises and was, thus, work-related.

The employer provided janitorial services to Smith Kline and assigned the claimant to a building where he worked from 5 P.M. to 10 P.M. Normally, the claimant would arrive at the location at approximately 4:30 P.M., where he would wait to clock in, until about five minutes before 5:00 P.M. Each day, the claimant commuted to work by train and took a shuttle operated by Smith Kline to his assigned building. He was not required to take the Smith Kline shuttle to work and was not paid by the employer for his time travelling to work.

On the date of the injury, the claimant arrived at Smith Kline by shuttle. The shuttle pulled into the lot where the building was located, just a few feet from the front door. When the claimant stepped down, his left foot twisted, and he fell. The incident occurred at 4:32 P.M., just before the claimant clocked in for work.

A claim petition was filed, which was denied by the Workers’ Compensation Judge on the basis that the injury did not occur while the claimant was in the course and scope of his employment. The judge found that the shuttle was not part of the employer’s “premises” because the employer had no connection with its employees’ means for travelling to work and did not operate the shuffle. The claimant appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed, holding that the injury was not compensable as the claimant was commuting to work on a shuttle bus not owned or controlled by the employer.

The claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the Board, holding that the claimant’s injury was compensable. In doing so, the court acknowledged that the claimant was not furthering the business or affairs of the employer while commuting, which, under § 301(c)(1) of the Act, would have placed the claimant within the course and scope of employment, without regard to where the injury occurred. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the claimant’s injury was sustained within the course and scope of employment because he was on the premises occupied or under the control of the employer, was required by the nature of his employment to be present on the employer’s premises and sustained injuries caused by the condition of the premises. According to the court, the area where the claimant fell, which was just a few feet from the front door of the main building where his work would be performed, was a reasonable means to access the employer’s premises and occurred in an area integral to the employer’s work place. Additionally, the court held that the condition of the premises, namely, the ground itself, was the cause of the claimant’s injuries as the ground “played some role in the causative chain” of the injury.

 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}