Special Alert—COVID-19 and Work-from-Home Claims in Pennsylvania

When determining whether an employee who works in his or her home has suffered a compensable work-related injury, the analysis must focus on whether the injury occurred within the course and scope of employment and, more specifically, whether the employee was actually engaged in the furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs. The Commonwealth Court has held that injuries are sustained in the course of employment when the employee, whether on or off the employer’s premises, is injured while “actually engaged in the furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs.” WCAB (Slaugenhaupt) v. U.S. Steel Corp., 376 A.2d 271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). The courts have also noted that an employee does not depart from being “actually engaged” in the furtherance of the employer’s business during temporary departures from work activities. Montgomery Hospital v. WCAB (Armstrong), 793 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

The leading case on the subject of injuries occurring while working in the home is Verizon Pa., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Alston), 900 A.2d 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). This case involved an employee who worked at her employer’s office three days per week and in her own home office, located in her basement, two days per week. The claimant was working at home and had taken a break to go upstairs. While upstairs, she received a phone call from her supervisor. She was descending the steps to her basement office when she fell, hitting her head and injuring her neck.

The court determined that the analysis must focus on whether the employee was within the course and scope of her employment and was “actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer.” They noted that the claimant was working at a fixed location (her home office), which had been approved by her employer as her secondary work premises. The court then applied the “personal comfort” doctrine, noting that the claimant was attending to her personal comfort when she went upstairs to get a glass of juice. The court determined that the claimant was actually engaged in the furtherance of her employer’s interests when she was injured, despite a brief detour to take care of her personal comfort. The court noted that the claimant had taken a phone call from her supervisor and was descending the steps to return to work when she fell. The court determined that this “detour” to go upstairs to get a glass of juice did not constitute an “abandonment” of her employment.

Verizon seems to make clear that if the employee is at home and is “actually engaged” in an activity that is in furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs, then any injury suffered while so “actually engaged” in that work-related activity would be considered to have occurred within the course and scope of employment. Therefore, when evaluating a claim for an injury occurring in an employee’s home, you must carefully review the facts of how the injury occurred and what the employee was doing at the time of the injury. A detailed and recorded statement should be obtained from the employee to determine how and where the injury occurred and exactly what the employee was doing when the injury occurred. If the employee was using an employer-provided device, or was remotely connected to the employer’s computer system, information should be obtained to determine if the employee was actually working at the time the injury occurred. A search of e-mails sent and received may assist in determining whether the employee was actually engaged in work activities at the time of the injury. A search of telephone, text or other messaging services, in addition to reviewing documents being worked on by the employee and a review of metadata, may also prove beneficial.

In conclusion, if you have an employee who alleges an injury occurred while working at home or in a home office, the primary inquiry must be whether that employee was “actually engaged” in an activity that was in furtherance of the employer’s business or affairs at the time the injury occurred. A minor detour from work activities while working at home (i.e., to use the bathroom or get a cup of coffee from the kitchen) will likely not remove the employee from the course and scope of employment.

_{What's Hot in Workers' Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}