My distinguished colleague, Diana Reitz, recently wrote a blog pertaining to coverage for a Workers' Compensationclaim by a worker who was injured while on a meal break. Diananoted several court cases that dealt with injuries to workers whilethey were on lunch break and came to the conclusion that, dependingon the particular state jurisdiction, such injuries would becovered by Workers' Comp.

Read MoreFC&S Blog Posts at the Coverage Cafe

As a rule, in order for Workers' Comp benefits to apply, injuryto an employee must “arise out of and in the course of employment.”So, what does this phrase mean? Since neither the various statelaws nor the standard Workers' Comp policy define the phrase, thecourts have taken on the task of clarifying the meaning.

Courts have decided that the words “arise out of” refer to thecausal relationship between the employment and the injury.Professor Arthur Larson, in his work “The Law of Workmen'sCompensation,” opines that the phrase refers to the time and spacelimitations of the claimant's employment and a causality nexusbetween the injury and the employment responsibilities and duties.In other words, an accident arises out of employment when it occurswhile the employee is engaged in some activity or duty that he orshe is authorized to undertake and that is calculated to furtherthe employer's business. The term “in the course of employment” hasbeen found to refer to the time, place and circumstances underwhich the accident or injury occurred. So, as a general rule, foran injury or death to occur in the course of employment, it mustoccur within the period of employment, at a place or area where theemployee may reasonably be expected to be, and while the employeeis performing his or her work duties or engaged in an activity atleast incidental to his or her employment.

Considering this information, can it be said that a worker whois injured while on a lunch break or who is injured whileparticipating in a company party or a company-sponsored sportingevent is eligible for Workers' Comp benefits? Unfortunately, wehave to fall back on the tired old maxim: it depends on the factsof the incident. Courts will review the facts surrounding theinjury and decide on a case-by-case basis if the injury is a resultof the employment.

Incidentally, Diana did note in her blog that, when it comes tosuch things as lunch breaks, courts consider the personal-comfortdoctrine. This doctrine could be applied to lunch breaks, trips tothe restroom and even visiting a co-worker under certaincircumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Sauerwein v.Department of Industry and Human Relations, 262 N.W.2d 126(1978), described the doctrine and its relationship to Workers'Comp coverage thusly: Employees who engage in acts that minister topersonal comfort do not thereby leave the course of employment,unless the departure is so great that an intent to abandon the jobtemporarily may be inferred, or unless the method chosen is sounusual and unreasonable that the conduct cannot be considered asincident of the employment. In other words, eating lunch or gettingup to get a drink or going to the bathroom can be considered asactivities in the course of employment if they are reasonable andnot inconsistent with the employment objectives.