Injury sustained by the claimant on his way to take a cigarette break and get a sandwich was compensable under the “personal comfort” doctrine.

The claimant, who was the recipient of Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits due to a mental health condition, worked in a part-time capacity for an employer that found jobs for individuals on SSD seeking supplemental income. The claimant was placed as a custodial worker at a senior citizens community center located near a small public park. On the date of the incident, the facility was being cleaned and ventilated after a roof leak, which interfered with the claimant’s performance of his usual tasks. At about 4 P.M., the claimant decided to take a cigarette break and get a sandwich at a shop just outside the park. It was understood that if his supervisor was not around, limited breaks could be taken without permission. The claimant’s supervisor was not present. The claimant walked out of the building by himself, down outside steps and onto a pathway in the park area, where he slipped on ice, causing him to fall backwards and injure his head. The claimant filed a claim petition for benefits. 

The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the claim petition, finding that it fell under the personal comfort doctrine since there was a minor deviation from employment. On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed. 

However, the Commonwealth Court reversed the Board. Recognizing the fact-specific nature of these cases, the court determined, based on their analysis of legal precedent, that the personal comfort doctrine may apply when a claimant’s time away from the work premises is informal in nature, purely devoted to a personal comfort of a physical nature and brief enough that the course of employment is not broken. On the other hand, the court said that the doctrine may not apply if a worker is on a formalized break or lunch period, during which the employee is likely to enjoy a degree of autonomy and may engage in other activities in addition to immediate personal needs. According to the court’s analysis, the personal comfort doctrine applied in this case; therefore, they concluded that the claimant was in the course of employment and that benefits were payable. 

^{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 © 2022 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.}