Opinion ID: 2166474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the plaintiff's injuries occur in the course of her employment?

Text: It is well settled in Tennessee, and in many other jurisdictions, that for an injury to be compensable under the Act, it must both arise out of and occur in the course of employment. Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-103(a) (2005); Blankenship v. Am. Ordnance Sys., L.L.S., 164 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tenn.2005); Clark v. Nashville Mach. Elevator Co., 129 S.W.3d 42, 46-47 (Tenn. 2004). Although both of these statutory requirements seek to ensure a connection between the employment and the injuries for which benefits are being sought, they are not synonymous. Blankenship, 164 S.W.3d at 354 (citing Sandlin v. Gentry, 201 Tenn. 509, 300 S.W.2d 897, 901 (1957)). As such, the arising out of requirement refers to cause or origin; whereas, in the course of denotes the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Tenn.1997). Furthermore, we have consistently abstained from adopting any particular judicial test, doctrine, formula, or label that purports to clearly define the line between accidents and injuries which arise out of and in the course of employment [and] those which do not[.] Bell v. Kelso Oil Co., 597 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Tenn. 1980); accord Hudson v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 583 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tenn. 1979). In this case, we will consider the second requirement first. An injury occurs in the course of employment when it takes place within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while the employee is fulfilling work duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Blankenship, 164 S.W.3d at 354 (quoting 1 Arthur Larson, Workers' Compensation Law, § 12 (2004)). Generally, injuries sustained during personal breaks are compensable. Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 723 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tenn.1987); Gooden v. Coors Technical Ceramic Co., 236 S.W.3d 151, 155 (Tenn.2007). In Holder , we affirmed an award of workers' compensation benefits for an employee who slipped and fell in his employer's parking lot while he was putting his lunch box into his vehicle after finishing his meal. Id. at 105. We noted that [t]he remedial policies of the Worker's Compensation Act would be undermined if too severe a line were drawn controlling the compensability of injuries that occur during the normal course of the work day after employees have arrived for work, have started working, and before they have left for the day. Id. at 107. Much like the defendant in Holder , the defendant here argues that the plaintiff's injuries are not compensable because the plaintiff was not fulfilling a work duty in admitting Sawyers into her kitchen. It is true that the plaintiff suffered her injuries while preparing her lunch in the kitchen of her home; however, the plaintiff's work site was located within her home. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's kitchen was comparable to the kitchens and break rooms that employers routinely provide at traditional work sites. Moreover, the ACS was aware of and implicitly approved of the plaintiff's work site. Her supervisor and co-workers had attended meetings at the plaintiff's home office. It is reasonable to conclude that the ACS realized that the plaintiff would take personal breaks during the course of her working day including such incidental acts as eating, drinking, smoking, seeking toilet facilities, and seeking fresh air, coolness or warmth. Carter v. Volunteer Apparel, Inc., 833 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tenn.1992) (citing 1A Arthur Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, §§ 21.10-21.50 (1990))(footnote omitted). Thus, after careful review, we conclude that the injuries the plaintiff sustained while on her lunch break, like the injuries at issue in Holder , occurred during the course of the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff was assaulted at a place where her employer could reasonably expect her to be. The ACS permitted the plaintiff to work from home for approximately four years. The plaintiff's supervisor and co-workers regularly came to her home office for meetings. The record does not suggest that the ACS restricted the plaintiff's activities during working hours or prohibited her from taking personal breaks. The facts do not show that the plaintiff was engaging in any prohibited conduct or was violating any company policy by preparing lunch in her kitchen. It is reasonable to conclude that the ACS would have anticipated that the plaintiff would take a lunch break at her home just as employees do at traditional work sites. See McCormick v. Aabakus Inc., 101 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tenn.Workers Comp.Panel 2000). Importantly, Sawyer's initial visit was very brief and spontaneous. Unless instructed otherwise by the employer, an employee working from a home office who answers a knock at her door and briefly admits an acquaintance into her home does not necessarily depart so far from her work duties so as to remove her from the course of her employment. This is not to say, however, that situations may never arise where more prolonged or planned social visits might well remove the employee from the course of the employment. In arguing that the plaintiff's injury did not occur in the course of her employment, the defendant maintains that the plaintiff's decision to admit Sawyers into her home was not a work duty. However, this argument misses the mark on this requirement because the Act does not explicitly state that the employee's actions must benefit the employer; it only requires that the injuries occur in the course of the employment. See Carter, 833 S.W.2d at 495-96. Because the plaintiff was engaged in a permissible personal break incidental to her employment, we reject the defendant's narrow interpretation of the Act. The question is not whether the plaintiff's injuries occurred while she was performing a duty owed to the ACS, but rather whether the time, place, and circumstances demonstrate that the injuries occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in an activity incidental to her employment. Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiff suffered her injuries during the course of her employment and disagree with the chancery court's conclusion on this important point.