Employee Injured During Lunch Break Entitled to PA Workers’ Compensation Benefits

A work injury in Pennsylvania is generally compensable if the injured worker is hurt while in the scope and course of his or her employment. Simple, right? The hard part comes with understanding the terms. Like, what constitutes “scope and course” of employment?

For starters, you will not find this term in the PA Workers’ Compensation Act. Instead, this is a concept created by the courts over the past many years. Another concept created by the courts is the “personal comfort doctrine,” which says that an employee does not leave the scope and course of employment while making a brief departure from his or her duties to attend to personal needs, whether that be a cigarette break, food, a drink or a visit to the restroom.

Does one leave the “scope and course” of employment when taking a break? That becomes a magic question, and one that is often seen in litigation. Scope and course cases are very fact-specific, making it difficult to provide clear rules for what is, and what is not, covered.

A recent case before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania examined this concept, and provided some guidance for us to follow. In the case of Giant Eagle, Inc., v. Baker (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board), the employee was taking one of two mandatory 15-minute breaks. Unfortunately, she was hit by a car while crossing the street in front of employer’s location. She was intending to purchase a sandwich, to bring back and eat.

The case was tried before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) who found that the injured worker was not in the scope and course of her employment, since she had clocked out for her break. The Claim Petition was therefore denied by the WCJ.

This was reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) and remanded back to a WCJ for additional findings. Ultimately, the Claim Petition was granted (so the injured worker was found by the WCJ to have been within the scope and course of her employment, and eligible for workers’ compensation benefits).

On appeal this time, the WCAB affirmed. Upon further appeal, the Commonwealth Court also affirmed. The fact that the injured worker had clocked out was not the key factor. Rather, the Court looked at the personal comfort doctrine, and found that the 15-minute break was only long enough for the employee to tend to her specific need for food. Had the break been longer, and she had time to perform other personal tasks, the result would be different. As it was, the Court felt that this departure was too minute to break the scope and course of employment. She was only going across the street, and, even then, was only seeking to purchase her lunch. Other situations, where the employees performed other personal tasks, or where the break was longer, were distinguished by the Court.

Interestingly, the Court also quickly dismissed the fact that the injured worker was hurt while jaywalking. The Court specifically stated that contributory negligence is no defense in PA workers’ compensation cases.