finding compensable injuries sustained by employee after picking up takeout lunch on first floor of building to take back to her desk so she could work through lunch during a particularly busy time for employer
How later courts described this case
- finding compensable injuries sustained by employee after picking up takeout lunch on first floor of building to take back to her desk so she could work through lunch during a particularly busy time for employer
- relying on Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Borough of Plum, 20 Pa.Cmwlth. 35, 340 A.2d 637 (1975)
- takeout food from restaurant in building lobby
- so-called personal comfort doctrine applied more broadly to a traveling employee
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Claimant was furthering Employer’s business when she slipped on a wet floor outside a restaurant after she picked up her lunch. Although Claimant was returning to her office, she was clearly on a lunch break when she fell. I do not believe an employee collecting a take-out lunch is an act that furthers the employer’s business. The fact that the restaurant was located in the same building as Claimant’s place of employment is inconsequential. She was no more in furtherance of Employer’s business than if she slipped outside a restaurant located a substantial distance away. I do not believe the proximity of the restaurant to the office is material and that it is error to consider it so.
Additionally, I do not believe this situation comes under the “personal comfort doctrine.” Under the decision reached by the majority, the situations under which an employee may receive benefits under the Act would greatly expand. 1
. Because I would deny Claimant's claim petition, I would necessarily not have to address the issues of Claimant’s cross-appeal.