Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.

While the majority arrives at the correct judgment, it does so based on a faulty analysis concerning whether claimants had a fixed place of employment for purposes of the “going and coming” rule, and whether claimants’ injuries arose out of their employment. *127I write separately to clarify certain aspects of the “course” and “arising” elements as they apply to the fact patterns presented in these cases.

Appellant, Cubby Drilling, Inc. (“Cubby”), is engaged in the business of drilling oil and gas wells. Most of its drilling is performed in Ohio and Pennsylvania, with occasional drilling sites in…