Could Traveling Employee who Sometimes went to Pa. Office File Workers’ Comp Claim There?

What Do You Think?

Employees generally must file for workers’ compensation in the state where their employer is located and where they work. But what if the employee sometimes works in the office and sometimes at home across state lines?

That was the issue in the case of a director of customer education for an engine additives company. His job required him to travel a lot. He mainly worked from his home in New Jersey. But about once a month, he would mosey over to his employer’s Pennsylvania office, which was a couple hours away, for sales meetings, or to pick up supplies.

His employment agreement stated: “This [A]greement will be governed by Pennsylvania law, and in any lawsuit involving this [A]greement, I consent to the jurisdiction and venue of any state or federal court located in Pennsylvania.”

As a result of all the driving, he said, he injured his back. He filed a workers’ compensation claim in Pennsylvania. The workers’ compensation judge dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, and the employee appealed.

On appeal, the court stated that an employee injured out of state can file for workers’ compensation in another state if his employment is principally located there. A person's employment is principally localized in a particular state when:

1. His employer has a place of business in the state; and
2. The employee regularly works from that place of business. 

However, a written employment agreement can also control where a job is localized. Specifically, the agreement can specify that a traveling employee's employment is principally in Pennsylvania. In that situation, the employee may file for workers’ compensation in that state.

Could the claimant seek workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania?

A. Yes. The employment agreement said that any lawsuits he filed would be heard by a Pennsylvania court.

B. No. He normally worked in New Jersey, and the employment agreement didn’t address workers’ compensation.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Grasso v. Siegel Distributing Company, Inc., No. 1520 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 01/08/25, unpublished), which held that Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction over the case.

Need to know jurisdictional rules for your state? You need Simply Research.

To show that his employment was principally localized in Pennsylvania, the claimant had to demonstrate that he regularly worked at the Pennsylvania office. But in this case, working there was the exception, not the rule, for the claimant. 

Further, the employment agreement did not make Pennsylvania his principal employment location. The agreement did not specify where his employment was principally localized. It also did not state that workers’ compensation issues would be governed by Pennsylvania law. 

“In fact, the Agreement does not mention workers' compensation issues at all and is silent on this matter,” the court said.

Instead, the agreement stated that Pennsylvania law would govern violations of the employment agreement itself. 

The court affirmed the WCJ’s ruling that Pennsylvania lacked jurisdiction over the claim.

Share This Article: