Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A Pennsylvania appellate court recently held that the state’s Appeal Board erred when it awarded workers’ compensation benefits to a painter injured in a fall as he walked toward a train station at the end of his workday. A painting contractor employed the painter. In turn, the contractor contracted with a university to paint various dormitories. The employer assigned the painter to one such facility. The painter contended he was still on the employer’s premises at the time of his fall, since the slate walkway was part of the university’s campus. The appellate court disagreed. While the court acknowledged that the “premises” was not necessarily limited to buildings or property controlled, occupied, or owned by the employer, it could not ignore the fact that the painter worked for the contractor, not for the university. While the “premises” might easily have included the building within which the painter worked, it did not include the slate pathway some 150 feet away where he fell. The employer had no control over that portion of the university’s property.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Mansfield Bros. Painting v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Board (German), 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 287 (July 26, 2013) [2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 287 (July 26, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 13.01 [13.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site