In Peters v. WCAB (Cintas Corp.), No. 1 MAP 2020, 2021 Pa. LEXIS 4002 (Pa. Nov. 17, 2021), a portion of the injured worker’s duties required periods of travel. On the date of injury he had been traveling and providing business services to various clients. After completing his clear-cut work duties he drove to and attended a social gathering at a local restaurant sponsored by his employer. Accepting the lower Court’s fact finding, the High Court regards the worker’s attendance at the event as voluntary and not required by the employer. After leaving the restaurant and apparently on his way home, the worker was injured in a motor vehicle collision. The trial court, Appeal Board, and Commonwealth Court all held that the worker was outside of the scope of employment at the time of the crash and declined to award benefits. The Supreme Court was not so persuaded and specifically spoke to the broad protections afforded the injured worker by the Act, including the presumption that workers who travel to meet their employer’s objectives are historically afforded broader protection for injuries occurring while in transit. The High Court adopted the traveling employee doctrine finding the doctrine is implicated when the injured worker first proves that (1) he is a traveling employee and (2) that he set out on the day of the accident on the business of the Employer. In so finding the Court vacated the Order of the Commonwealth Court, and remanded the case for a determination on whether the injured worker had abandoned his employment at the time of the crash. Abandonment is an affirmative defense to the traveling employee doctrine which is available to Defendant employers/insurers. The Defendant carries the burden of proof on this point once the injured worker establishes his status as a traveling employee.

In addition to adopting the traveling employee doctrine Peters recognizes that non-mandatory, voluntary, social events hosted by an employer can be considered work-related for the traveling employee as these types of events foster relationships among co-workers and improve morale all inuring to the benefit of the Defendant-employer. The Court also declined to limit the protections of the traveling employee doctrine to fatal claims only, as argued by the defense.

The take home message for workers who travel for a living – the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation laws presume to protect and cover you from the time you start your work duties until the time you return home. Once these factors are credibly established the burden is on the Defendant to prove work abandonment through evidence of activities so foreign or novel as to sever the continuity of the course and scope of employment relationship.

The post PA Supreme Court Speaks on [and Adopts] Traveling Employee Doctrine – A Win for Injured Workers first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

As reported in the AAJ Brief Magazine published in September, 2021, a research project at the Henry Ford Health System estimated that more than 103,000 E-Scooter injuries have occurred since the launch of sharing programs, such as Lime and Bird. Until 2018, injuries were most prevalent for riders under age 18. But from 2018 forward — those 18 to 44 have now become the most injured group.

The injuries span a large range — from fractures to traumatic brain injuries.

So if you are going to ride an E-Scooter, please be careful. And consider wearing a helmet.

For more information, visit https://tinyurl.com/fa8hepd5

The post E-Scooter Injuries first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

That’s right — motor vehicle crashes killed nearly 3,000 more people in 2020 than the year before, despite the pandemic. How can that be? Fewer miles, fewer drivers, less commercial activity. . . and more deaths?

The Safety Council estimated that miles driven in the United States dropped 13% last year. But fatalities increased by nearly 3,000.

“We saw this uptick here in people driving at higher speeds and it had the tragic consequences we are now seeing here in the data”, said David Harkey, President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Bottom line: Speed kills.

The post Think the Pandemic Would Lead to Fewer Fatalities in Vehicle Crashes? Better Think Again first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

There are several explanations offered for these findings. “The numbers indicate that women more often drive small, lighter cars and that they are more likely than men to be driving the struck vehicle in the side impact and front into rear crashes,” offered Jessica Jermakian of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

These type of injury statistics, demonstrating disparate results between men and women, have led to new crash test dummies being used to more reflect women’s dimensions. These studies are consistent with previous analysis. The Federal Fatal Analysis Reporting System shows that men are more likely to be the striking vehicle in rear end and side impact collisions. Statistically, the striking vehicle is at lower risk of injury in such crashes.

Some positive developments are seen through the use of seatbelts and air bags. But these sex-based disparities continue.

The post Study: Women More Likely to Suffer Serious Injury from Crashes first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

The Supreme Court, in a 6 to 1 decision, authored by Justice Debra Todd, ruled that insurance policies which require policyholders to undergo potentially unlimited medical exams (by insurance company selected physicians) to preserve insurance benefits are not binding in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In fact, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court found that such provisions in auto policies “manifestly conflict with, and are repugnant to” Pennsylvania law.

Only Courts have the authority to order “first party” medical exams, if justified, and only after the policy holders refuse. And a Court may order an insured to attend a medical examination only “upon motion for good cause shown.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly rejected the current practice of insurers compelling insureds to attend “independent” medical examinations on the basis of the policy provision only. Instead, an insurer must petition the Court and demonstrate “good cause”. And most importantly, the Court will select the medical examiner — and
not the insurance carrier.

Know your rights. Call us with any questions.

The post PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT AUTO INSURERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY COMPEL “INDEPENDENT” MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

In Safe Auto Insurance v. Oriental-Guillermo, authored by Supreme Court Justice Debra Todd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held:

“In the instant case, the policy contains a clear and unambiguous [unregistered driver exclusion], which excludes coverage for injury or property damage that occurred while policyholder’s vehicle was operated by a resident of his household or by a regular user of his covered vehicle, unless that person is listed as an additional driver on the declarations page. . . .Policyholder had the option of adding his girlfriend to the policy, but chose not to do so. Undoubtedly, this choice resulted in reduced insurance premiums, and as we have previously stated, an insured is not entitled to receive gratis coverage. Moreover, in the absence of provisions in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to the contrary, insurers are not compelled to underwrite unknown and uncompensated risks. Thus, we decline to hold that the [unregistered driver exclusion] in this case is contrary to public policy.”

So what does this mean for consumers?

You need to be certain that all members of your household, and anyone who regularly use your vehicles, are identified on your automobile insurance policy as insureds or, at a minimum, “additional drivers”.

What if you don’t do it? Well, if your automobile insurance policy has “clear and unambiguous” language excluding coverage for unregistered drivers, that driver may not be covered if your vehicle is in a collision. And you could be subject to uninsured liability.

It is a big deal. Make sure you are covered.

The post Better Make Sure your Auto Insurer Knows Who Regularly Drives your Vehicles first appeared on O'Donnell Law.