SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Significant Case Summaries
Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Tierra Baker (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1684 C.D. 2024
Decided: July 15, 2026
The Commonwealth Court affirmed that an employee remains in the course and scope of employment when injured while taking a short, mandatory work break and temporarily leaving the employer’s premises for personal need.
Background
The Claimant was injured during one of her two mandatory 15-minute breaks, when she was attempting to cross a street directly in front of ethe Employer’s premises to get lunch and ultimately was struck by a vehicle. Employer denied that Claimant was within the course and scope of her employment when she was injured. The WCJ found that the Claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of her injury. The WCJ observed that the Claimant was allotted two 15-minute breaks per shift, during which she was free to leave the premises. During the break, the Claimant was permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired, as she clocked out at the start of her break and clocked back in upon her return. Therefore, during this time, the Claimant was not furthering the Employer’s interest at the time she was injured.
The WCAB reversed and remanded based on the personal comfort doctrine and determined that the Claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort. On remand, the Claim Petition was granted. Employer appealed asserting that the WCAB erred in determining that Claimant’s injuries occurred in the course and scope of her employment because the injury did not occur on its premises and because Claimant exceeded the bounds of the personal comfort doctrine.
Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s conclusions. The Commonwealth Court concluded that Claimant’s brief departure from her employer’s premises did not represent a complete departure from course and scope. The Court relied on the personal comfort doctrine when finding that the Claimant’s activities during her mandatory break were reasonably incidental to her employment. Therefore, the Court affirmed the WCAB’s decision in awarding workers’ compensation benefits.
Takeaway
This Opinion broadens the application of the personal comfort doctrine, by finding that an employee does not necessarily fall outside the course and scope of her employment because the employee leaves the employer’s premises during a short, mandatory break.
Questions about this case can be directed to Emily LaGreca at 267-861-7589 or elagreca@tthlaw.com.
Perez-Martinez v. Dart Container Co. (WCAB)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 283 CD 2025
Decided: July 24, 2026
The Commonwealth Court held that a claimant is not entitled to continuing benefits where a work-related aggravation of a preexisting, non-work-related condition has fully resolved, even if returning to the pre-injury position could cause a future recurrence.
Background
The Claimant was required to wear steel-toed shoes as a machine operator. The Claimant alleged that the steel-toed boots caused bilateral foot pain and left-foot sesamoiditis. He eventually stopped working because of the footwear requirement and filed a Claim Petition alleging a work-related foot condition. The Employer prevailed on a Termination Petition after both parties’ experts concluded that Claimant required no further restrictions for Claimant’s temporary aggravation by the work boots. Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that he remained entitled to benefits because returning to his pre-injury position and wearing steel-toed boots would cause another aggravation of his foot condition. Relying upon Lash v. WCAB (General Battery Corp.) and Farquhar v. WCAB (Corning Glass Works), Claimant argued that he should not be required to return to work and suffer another injury before receiving continuing benefits. The Board rejected Claimant’s argument and affirmed the WCJ.
Holding
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board. The Court held that Claimant’s circumstances were governed by Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. WCAB (Baxter) rather than Lash or Farquhar. The Court distinguished Lash and Farquhar because the claimants in those cases continued to suffer from residual work-related injuries that had never fully resolved. By contrast, where a claimant’s employment merely aggravates a preexisting, non-work-related condition and the work-related aggravation completely resolves, continuing benefits are not warranted solely because returning to the same workplace conditions might produce another aggravation.
Takeaway
This case shows that when work aggravates a pre-existing condition, an employer may be entitled to a termination of benefits upon a showing that the claimant has returned to his pre-injury baseline, even if returning to work arguably could re-aggravate the condition.
Questions about this case can be directed Taryn Vender at 570-825-4794 or tvender@tthlaw.com.