## Facts

- Michelle La Rochelle worked for Del-Mar Scientifics, Inc.
- Del-Mar provided a ping-pong table on its premises for employee recreation.
- Del-Mar regulated use of the table, including where it could be placed and limiting play to designated break times.
- During a paid work break, on the employer’s premises, La Rochelle played ping-pong.
- La Rochelle suffered a back injury while playing.
- The workers’ compensation carrier, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., denied benefits, asserting the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
- La Rochelle sued to establish compensability under the Texas workers’ compensation scheme; the trial court ruled for La Rochelle.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s injury sustained on the employer’s premises during a paid break while engaging in employer-provided and employer-regulated recreation arises out of and in the course of employment for workers’ compensation purposes.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for La Rochelle.
- The court held the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment and was compensable.
- The court relied on the employer’s provision and regulation of the activity, and the fact the injury occurred on-premises during paid time.

## Legal Principles

- An injury may be compensable when it occurs during employer-sanctioned recreational activity on the employer’s premises during working time or a paid break.
- Employer sponsorship and control over the time, place, and conditions of the recreational activity supports treating the activity as a customary incident of employment.
- Recreational injuries are more likely to be within the course of employment when the employer furnishes the equipment, permits the activity as part of workplace routine, and the employee remains on paid time.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed workers’ compensation coverage for an injury suffered during a paid-break ping-pong game where the employer provided and regulated the activity on its premises, treating the recreation as sufficiently connected to employment to satisfy the course-and-scope requirement.


Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. La Rochelle, 587 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)