Court Opinion

ID: 9695509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:21:16.15031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.457174
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Claimant was furthering Employer’s business when she slipped on a wet floor outside a restaurant after she picked up her lunch. Although Claimant was returning to her office, she was clearly on a lunch break when she fell. I do not believe an employee collecting a take-out lunch is an act that furthers the employer’s business. The fact that the restaurant was located in the same building as Claimant’s place of employment is inconsequential. She was no more in furtherance of Employer’s business than if she slipped outside a restaurant located a substantial distance away. I do not believe the proximity of the restaurant to the office is material and that it is error to consider it so.
Additionally, I do not believe this situation comes under the “personal comfort doctrine.” Under the decision reached by the majority, the situations under which an employee may receive benefits under the Act would greatly expand.1

. Because I would deny Claimant's claim petition, I would necessarily not have to address the issues of Claimant’s cross-appeal.