Macomber v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
*1284OPINION BY
Judge COHN.
This ease presents a question of first impression in Pennsylvania: whether the phrase “has a place of business,” as used in the extraterritorial injury provision in Section 305.2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act,1 (Act) requires that the out-of-state “place of business” be owned or leased by the employer in order for a claimant’s employment to be “principally localized” there. We are here concerned with a locale in New Jersey, where Penske Transportation Services (Employer) and its insurers assert Henry Macomber’s (Claimant) employment is principally localized, so that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- York Terrace/Beverly Enterprises v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- McIlvaine Trucking, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Robbins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Holland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Burrell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Williams v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Melmark Home v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rosenberg)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Greenawalt v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- MacOmber v. WCAB (PENSKE TRANSP.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.