## Facts

- Michael L. Durrah worked as a special police officer for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
- While on a midnight-to-8:00 a.m. shift at a Metrobus depot, Durrah left his guard post around 4:00 a.m. to buy a soda from a vending machine in an employee lounge located on WMATA’s premises.
- The lounge, vending machine, and staircase were employer-provided facilities intended for employee use.
- While returning to his post, Durrah slipped on the staircase and injured his knee.
- Durrah sought disability and medical benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA).
- WMATA argued Durrah left his post contrary to instructions because he allegedly failed to report his departure and obtain a substitute.
- An administrative law judge denied benefits, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; the Benefits Review Board affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an injury sustained on the employer’s premises during a brief trip to obtain a drink from an employer-provided vending machine “arose out of and in the course of employment” under the LHWCA.
2. Whether an alleged violation of an employer work rule (leaving a post without reporting and obtaining a substitute) removes an otherwise on-duty, on-premises injury from LHWCA coverage.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board and remanded.
- The court held the injury occurred within the time and space limits of employment and during an activity incidental to employment.
- The court held the alleged rule violation did not, by itself, take the activity outside the course of employment.

## Legal Principles

- Under the LHWCA, a compensable injury is an accidental injury “arising out of and in the course of employment.”
- Ordinary “personal comfort” acts (such as briefly obtaining a drink) are generally incidental to employment when they occur during work hours and on the employer’s premises using employer-provided facilities.
- An employer rule violation does not automatically defeat workers’ compensation coverage; the question is whether the conduct so substantially departs from employment-related activity that the employment connection is broken.

## Conclusion

Because Durrah was injured on duty, on WMATA’s premises, while using employer-provided facilities for a routine personal comfort need, the injury fell within the course of employment under the LHWCA, and any alleged work-rule infraction did not bar coverage.


Durrah v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 760 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1985)