Claim petition is reversed on the basis that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of the work injury.

The claimant filed a claim petition for workers’ compensation benefits for a degloving injury that occurred to his left thumb. The claimant worked in a machine shop, and approximately two hours into the midnight shift, after ensuring that the employer’s machines were running smoothly, the claimant told co-workers he would be in the tool and die room for a few minutes if they needed him. Within five minutes, while polishing a bolt for his child’s go-cart with an emery cloth, the claimant’s left thumb was drawn into a lathe. The claimant filed a claim petition, which was granted by the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The Appeal Board affirmed the judge’s decision.

The Commonwealth Court, however, reversed the decisions below. Noting that the judge concluded that the injury occurred during a temporary departure from work that did not break the course of employment, the Commonwealth Court disagreed and held that the claimant abandoned his work responsibilities as he was deliberately engaged in an activity wholly foreign to his employment, i.e., polishing a bolt for his child’s go-cart. In the court’s view, although the claimant was gone from the machine shop for only five minutes when he sustained the injury, his departure from the course of his employment was not trivial or insignificant. The court further noted that the claimant was not injured attending to personal comfort, such as getting a drink of water or using the restroom. Rather, he was injured while actively disengaged from his work responsibilities. The court held that the evidence supported the legal conclusion that the claimant’s injury occurred during a pronounced departure from his job and, therefore, not in the course and scope of employment.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter 2013