## Facts

- Robert Bletter worked for Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. as an associate editor of high school textbooks.
- Harcourt maintained a cafeteria in the building for employees; employees had a lunch period and could eat either in the cafeteria or elsewhere.
- On the day of the accident, Bletter ate lunch in the company cafeteria with two co-workers and “probably” cut the lunch period short because they were busy.
- After lunch, Bletter and his co-workers returned toward their offices using a self-service elevator on the employer’s premises.
- While riding the elevator from the cafeteria floor to his office floor, Bletter attempted “to do a dance step.”
- Bletter fell and fractured his thigh.
- Bletter testified he acted because he was in good spirits and felt he enjoyed his job, co-workers, and supervisor.
- A workers’ compensation referee initially disallowed the claim, but the Workmen’s Compensation Board reversed and awarded benefits, finding the act was not an unreasonable activity or a deviation from employment and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The employer and carrier appealed from the Board’s award.

## Issues

1. Whether Bletter’s injury from a brief, spontaneous dance step in a self-service elevator on the employer’s premises while returning from lunch “arose out of” (and occurred “in the course of”) his employment for workers’ compensation purposes.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s award of benefits.
- The court agreed with the Board that the event was a spontaneous outburst of exuberance and good feeling connected to the employment and that the injury both occurred in the course of employment and arose out of employment.
- The court held the record provided a sufficient basis for the Board’s finding that the conduct was not an unreasonable deviation from employment.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation coverage requires that an accidental injury both occur “in the course of” employment (time, place, and circumstances) and “arise out of” employment (a causal connection between employment and the accident).
- The “arising out of” requirement can be satisfied when the Board reasonably finds that the employment setting and conditions bear a sufficient relation to the accident, even if the employee was not performing a specific work task at the moment of injury.
- Brief, casual, and non-reckless playful conduct on the employer’s premises may be treated as incidental to employment, rather than a disqualifying departure, where the Board finds it is not an unreasonable activity under the circumstances.
- Whether an employee’s conduct amounts to a departure from employment, and whether an accident arose out of employment, are fact questions for the Workmen’s Compensation Board; on appeal, the award will be sustained if the Board’s conclusion has rational support in the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the compensation award because the Board could reasonably treat Bletter’s momentary dance step in the employer’s elevator, taken while returning from lunch on the premises, as a work-related incident rather than an unreasonable departure, satisfying the statutory requirement that the injury arise out of and in the course of employment.


Bletter v. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 290 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1968)