## Facts

- Glenda Dixon worked for U.S. Air Reservation Group (U.S. Air) as a unit supervisor on the fifth floor of an office building.
- As a supervisor, Dixon had no set lunch schedule and was expected to remain present and available during her shift to assist reservation agents.
- When Dixon could not take a regular lunch break, she could obtain takeout food from one of two restaurants located on the first floor of the same building.
- Dixon often continued to be approached by agents with work questions even while she was eating in the lunchroom.
- On November 27, 1996, Dixon went from the fifth floor to the first floor to pick up Chinese takeout because she could not take a regular lunch break.
- As Dixon left the restaurant carrying her lunch, she slipped on a wet floor tile and suffered multiple injuries.
- Dixon continued working through December 2, 1996, despite pain from the fall.
- On December 3, 1996, Dixon’s physician advised U.S. Air in a medical report that Dixon could not return to work due to her injuries.
- Dixon returned to work part-time in February 1997, but her condition worsened and she stopped working entirely on April 14, 1997.
- Dixon filed a workers’ compensation claim petition.
- At the hearing, a unit supervisor testified that a supervisor could pick up takeout food and still not be considered to be in “lunch break” status.
- The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) awarded total- and partial-disability benefits, finding Dixon’s injuries were sustained in furtherance of U.S. Air’s business and arose in the course of employment because she was required to be in that area of the building and the injury was caused by a condition of the building occupied and controlled by U.S. Air.
- The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed.
- U.S. Air and its carrier appealed, arguing the injury did not occur in the course of employment.

## Issues

1. Did Dixon’s slip-and-fall injury, sustained while picking up takeout food on the first floor of the building where she worked, occur “in the course of employment” under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act?

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s order.
- The court held that Dixon’s injury occurred in the course of employment, where the WCJ found that Dixon was required to be in the area where she was injured and the injury resulted from a condition of a building occupied and controlled by the employer.
- The court accepted that obtaining takeout lunch under these circumstances was sufficiently connected to employment, given Dixon’s lack of a set lunch period and her ongoing availability to respond to work needs.

## Legal Principles

- An injury is compensable under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act only if it arises in the course of employment and is related to employment.
- Under the premises rule, an injury occurring on the employer’s premises (or an area found to be occupied and controlled by the employer) may be in the course of employment when the employee is required to be there by the nature of the job or work duties.
- Under the personal comfort doctrine, brief acts to satisfy ordinary human needs—such as obtaining food—can remain within the course of employment when they are incidental to the work and do not break the employment connection.
- In determining course of employment, factfindings about the employee’s work status, expected availability, and the employer’s control or occupation of the location of injury support compensability.

## Conclusion

Dixon’s slip and fall while picking up takeout lunch in the same building where she worked was held to be in the course of her employment because she lacked a set lunch break, remained expected to be available for work needs, and the WCJ found she was required to be in the area where the injury occurred and that the hazardous condition was within a building occupied and controlled by U.S. Air; the Commonwealth Court therefore affirmed the award of benefits.


Dixon v. U.S. Air Reservation Group, 764 A.2d 635 (2000)