 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fadden v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board10/25/2005
Michael Fadden (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denying his claim petition against US Airways (Employer) under Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act (Act) because he was not injured in the course of his employment.
Claimant was employed by Employer as an airline pilot. Claimant resides in San Francisco and his employment was initially based there, but after Employer began experiencing financial difficulties, his "base" changed several times to other cities and ultimately to Philadelphia. No matter in which city Claimant was "based," he continued to reside in San Francisco and flew to wherever he was "based" on Employer's aircraft. While he did not have to pay Employer for the individual flights, he paid an annual service charge to fly Employer's flights to go to his base. Even though Employer had no requirement that pilots live where they were based, it was each pilot's responsibility to arrive on time and rested. The pilots were free to choose whether to commute the same day as their scheduled flight or arrive at their departure location at least a day beforehand.
When in Philadelphia, Claimant stayed at the Lagoon Hotel near the Philadelphia Airport which had converted an upstairs section into a dormitory-type operation. In this section, each bed was assigned to a particular resident, and each resident had his own dresser and drawers to store uniforms and flight equipment. As his share of the rent, Claimant paid $230 per month to another of Employer's pilots who then paid the Lagoon Hotel. Employer did not reimburse Claimant for his Philadelphia accommodations.
On the day of his accident, Claimant arrived at the Lagoon Hotel the night prior to his scheduled flight to Madrid. As Claimant was disposing of some garbage while cleaning his hotel room at approximately 11:15 a.m. on March 25, 2003, the railing on which he was leaning collapsed, causing Claimant to flip over and land on his back on concrete. Claimant fractured his back in several places due to the fall.
After his notice of compensation was denied, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that he suffered compression fractures to his back while in the course and scope of his employment, resulting in permanent disability. The WCJ denied Claimant's petition, concluding that he was not acting within the course of his employment because he was not a traveling employee until he left his "base" in Philadelphia. After the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, this appeal followed.
Claimant contends that the WCJ erred in concluding that he was not acting within the course of his employment because he was a traveling employee at the time of his accident as his job duties involved travel and he did not have a fixed place of work. Because he was a traveling employee, he contends that his injuries are presumed to be in furtherance of Employer's business. Roman v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources), 616 A.2d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). While a traveling employee's injuries are presumed to be work-related, a traveling employee is only entitled to that presumption after he has begun to travel on the business of his employer, Roman, which, at the time of this incident, Claimant had not. While Claimant commuted to Philadelphia from San Francisco and stayed at the hotel the night before his flight, that was his choice, not Employer's. At the end of the day, his "base" was Philadelphia, and he did not become a traveling employee until he set out on Employer's business, i.e. left Philadelphia. Because he was not a traveling employee a
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|