Macomber v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board

This case 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, (Act) requires that the out-of-state "place of business" be owned or leased by the employer in order for a claimants 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 Macombers (Claimant) employment is principally localized, so that the workers compensation system of that state has jurisdiction in this case, even though Employer did not own or lease any premises in New Jersey. The Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Board) held that ownership or leasing of the "place of business" was not required and, therefore, that Claimants employment was "principally localized" in New Jersey, thus vesting jurisdiction of the claim in that state. On that basis, it reversed the decision of a Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ), who had granted the claim petition, after finding that Claimants employment was "principally localized" in Pennsylvania.