PA Court Agrees Injuries Were Compensable under Personal Comfort Doctrine
Applying the personal comfort doctrine [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 21.01, et seq.], pursuant to which small, temporary departures from work to administer to personal comforts or convenience are said not to break the course of employment, a Pennsylvania appellate court reversed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board that had denied the claim of an employee who was injured when he slipped on ice as he walked from his workplace in a Philadelphia park to a nearby sandwich shop to grab a sandwich and smoke a cigarette [Henderson v. WP Ventures (Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.), 2022 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 14, 2022)]. The Court reviewed a number of earlier decisions and found that the uncontradicted testimony of the Claimant, joined with other evidence, clearly established that the employee’s “deviation” from work was insufficient to support the employer’s contention that he had stepped away from the course of his employment.
Background
Claimant qualified for and received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits due to mental health conditions. He worked part-time for WP Ventures, which served essentially as a labor broker finding part-time, minimum wage jobs for individuals receiving SSD who desired to earn supplemental income. Claimant was placed as a custodial worker at the Center in the Park, a senior citizens’ community centered located in a public park in Philadelphia. His duties included cleaning, emptying trash, performing basic maintenance, and setting up the facility for events and meetings. He worked at the Center in the Park 20 hours per week on weekday afternoons and was paid by WP Ventures.
On the day of Claimant’s injury, the park facility was being cleaned and ventilated and Claimant was not able to do most of his usual tasks. He later testified that at about 4:00 p.m., he was hungry and decided to take a break for a cigarette and to get a sandwich at a shop on just outside the park. Claimant testified that he ordinarily would ask for permission if his supervisor was present, but if the supervisor was not around, it was understood that he could take limited breaks without permission.
Claimant testified that his supervisor was not around at the time, so he walked out of the building by himself, down the outside steps, and onto a pathway in the park area, where he slipped on ice, fell backwards, and hit his head. Claimant was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. He was unable to return to work due to his injuries and ongoing pain and was ultimately discharged from his job.
WCJ Awards Benefits Under Personal Comfort Doctrine
A WCJ issued a decision and order awarding Claimant medical costs and wage loss benefits of $130.50 per week on an ongoing basis, finding that Claimant was in the course of employment when he was injured. Specifically, the WCJ found that the minor deviation in which Claimant had engaged fell within the personal comfort doctrine.
Board Reverses
The Board reversed, concluding that because Claimant had been away from his work premises attending to personal needs—a cigarette and a takeout sandwich—and not directly furthering the employer’s business, he was no longer in the course of employment when he was injured and was therefore not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant appealed, citing, inter alia, 1912 Hoover House Rest. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Soverns), 103 A.3d 441 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014),
Commonwealth Court’s Decision
The Commonwealth Court stressed that an employee sustains an injury in the course of employment when he or she is injured while engaged in the furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs, whether on or off the employer’s premises. Here, there was no dispute that Claimant was away from the work premises when the incident occurred. The question was whether he sustained his injury while engaged in furthering his employer’s business when he left the premises for a cigarette and a sandwich.
Citing The Baby’s Room v.Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Stairs), 860 A.2d 200, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the Court said it was well settled that small temporary departures from work to administer to personal comforts or convenience, nor inconsequential or innocent departures break the course of employment. Breaks which allow the employee to administer to his or her personal comfort better enable the employee to perform the job and are, therefore, considered to be in furtherance of the employer’s business.
The Court cited a line of Pennsylvania decisions, including 1912 Hoover House Restaurant, which had been relied upon by Claimant. There, the claimant was taking a permitted cigarette break in a designated area outside the restaurant where he worked when he was bitten by a co-worker’s dog. The Commonwealth Court found the claimant had not stepped outside the course of his employment when the injury occurred because his actions constituted only a “short cessation from his work duties” and fell within the personal comfort doctrine.
The Court concluded that, given the evidence as a whole, including Claimant’s unrebutted testimony, the relevant precedent, and the salutary goals of the Act, Claimant established that his actions fell within the parameters of the personal comfort doctrine. The Court said that the WCJ correctly concluded that Claimant was within the course of his employment when he was injured and that his injuries were compensable under the Act. The Board’s decision reversing the WCJ’s findings was erroneous.