Olszewski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

I respectfully dissent. Because Edmund Olszewski (Claimant) presented uncontroverted, unequivocal testimony that he had an employment contract providing for his use of a company vehicle as transportation to and from work, thereby placing Claimant under the first exception to the “coming and going” rule, I believe that Claimant’s injury occurred within the course and scope of his employment.

In reaching a contrary result, the majority maintains that Claimant did not meet his burden of proof because Claimant did not produce a written contract nor provide unequivocal testimony that there was a…