Legal Opinion

Macomber v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 2003PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. York Terrace/Beverly Enterprises v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. McIlvaine Trucking, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Robbins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Root v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Holland v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Burrell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Williams v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Melmark Home v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rosenberg)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Greenawalt v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. MacOmber v. WCAB (PENSKE TRANSP.)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API