holding that the claimant took himself out of the course and scope of employment when he jumped down a flight of stairs
How later courts described this case
- holding that the claimant took himself out of the course and scope of employment when he jumped down a flight of stairs
- claimant’s act of jumping down a flight of the stairs while on a lunch break was wholly foreign to his employment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. In reversing the decisions of both the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board and the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ), the majority holds that, although Claimant was injured when he jumped down a flight of stairs on his employer’s premises while going to lunch at an employer-run cafeteria, where Claimant had an employer-sponsored meal plan, Claimant was not acting in furtherance of his employer’s business or affairs. I cannot agree.
This court has held that breaks that allow an employee to administer to his personal comfort are considered to be in furtherance of the employer’s business because they better enable the employee to perform his job. U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635, 642 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). Also, in determining whether an employee is furthering an employer’s business, this court will consider whether the employer encourages the employee’s participation in an employer-sponsored activity. Pinn v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Hemlock Girl Scout Council), 754 A.2d 40, 43 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000).
Here, the record shows that Claimant had thirty minutes for his lunch break, *956 and, whenever he went to lunch on his employer’s premises at the employer-run cafeteria, using the employer-sponsored meal plan, Claimant was not required to “punch out” or “clock out at the time clock.” (N.T., 9/11/07, at 12, 24; R.R. at 35, 47.) If Claimant ever decided to leave his employer’s premises for lunch, Claimant had to “clock out at the time clock and then clock back in a half hour later.” (Id. at 12, 26; R.R. at 35, 49.) In other words, Claimant’s employer set up an on-premises lunch program for employees in order to encourage employees to remain on the employer’s premises for the thirty-minute lunch period. The employer obviously believed that employees would be better able to perform their job duties if they did not rush somewhere else for lunch. Thus, I submit that, inasmuch as Claimant was participating in an employer-sponsored, on-premises lunch program when he was injured, Claimant was furthering his employer’s business.
Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would affirm.