Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LEE W. ROBBINS v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MASON-DIXON LINE (08/21/85)

decided: August 21, 1985.

LEE W. ROBBINS, PETITIONER
v.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (MASON-DIXON LINE, INC.), RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Lee W. Robbins v. Mason-Dixon, No. A-84983.

COUNSEL

Neil Sagot, with him, Michael Patrick Boyle, Sagot & Jennings, for petitioner.

Paul L. Zeigler, with him, David C. Miller, Goldberg, Evans & Katzman, P.C., for respondent, Mason-Dixon Line, Inc.

Judges Rogers, Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge, Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 271]

The question for decision in this appeal is that of whether Lee W. Robbins (claimant), a resident of Morrisville, Pennsylvania, who had been employed by Mason-Dixon Line, Inc. (employer) as a truck driver by contract of hire made in Tennessee, the employer's headquarters, and who suffered injuries from a work-related heart attack in South Carolina, is entitled to the benefits provided by The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (Act).*fn1

Section 305.2 of the Act, 77 P.S. ยง 411.2, provides, relevantly:

(a) If an employe, while working outside the territorial limits of this State, suffers an injury on account of which he, or in the event of his death, his dependents, would have been entitled to the benefits provided by this act had such injury occurred within this State, such employe, or in the event of his death resulting from such injury, his dependents, shall be entitled to the benefits provided by this act, provided that at the time of such injury: (1) His employment is principally localized in this State. . .

(d) As used in this section: . . . . (4) A person's employment is principally localized in this or another state when

(i) his employer has a place of business in this or such other state and he regularly works at or from such place of business, or

(iii) if clause (i) . . . foregoing [is] not applicable, he is domiciled and spends a substantial part of his working time in the service of his employer in this or such other state.

[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 272]

Pursuant to Section 305.2, the claimant, having suffered an injury while working outside Pennsylvania on account of which he would have been entitled to benefits under the Act had it occurred in Pennsylvania, would be entitled to benefits of the Act if his employment is principally localized in Pennsylvania; that is, (1) if his employer has a place of business in Pennsylvania at or from which the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.