Vol. V No. 6
JUNE 1999
COMPENSATION
NEWS
MONTHLY REPORT
PERSONAL COMFORT DOCTRINE
MAY APPLY TO MORNING BREAK
A recent non published opinion is
probably more important to
employers than to the workers'
compensation community. This
appellate court decision dealt with a
compensated morning break.
himself, etc., do not interrupt the
continuity of employment, and this
exception is not limited to acts
performed on the employer's
premises."
"Under the 'personal comfort'
doctrine, "the course of employment
is not considered broken by certain
acts relating to the personal comfort
of the employee, as such acts are
helpful to the employer in that they
aid in efficient performance by the
employee." Therefore, this was found
to be a compensable injury.
The question for employers to ask
their corporate counsel is whether
they can legally limit the types of
activities an employee may engage in
during compensated breaks. If they
are permitted to limit these activities
the limits should be made known to
employees through an employee
handbook.
morning break at the normal time. She
delayed her morning break until 12:45
p.m. She felt she would take her
morning break in conjunction with the
lunch hour. She went to the restroom
to change clothes so that she might get
some exercise by taking a walk. While
she was untying her shoes she felt pain
in her back. She finished changing her
clothes and then punched out. She took
some Advil. She then changed back
into her uniform and punched the time
clock to resume work.
The Workers' Compensation Judge
(WCJ) determined at a hearing that the
injury was industrial because the state
law requires a paid break in the
morning and afternoon. Even though
the applicant testified she was going to
"work out" the WCJ determined she
was still "on the clock" at the time of
injury. Therefore, the injury did arise
out of the employment and in the
course of employment under the
"Personal Comfort Doctrine". The
Board reversed the WCJ on Petition
For Reconsideration and this appellate
court reversed the Board.
The court cited other cases stating
"(A)cts of the employee for his
personal comfort and convenience
while at work, such as taking a drink of
water, lighting a cigarette, warming
CASTILLO V.
WCAB
The applicant was paid by the hour by
her employer. The conditions of her
employment were that she was
compensated for two breaks during
the day but was not compensated for
her lunch. The applicant punched a
time card upon arriving at work, at
lunch time, and before leaving work
each day. Her hours were from 8:30
a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and from 2:00 p.m.
until 6:00 p.m. Her uncompensated
lunch break was from 1:00 p.m. until
2:00 p.m..
On the date of injury the applicant
was very busy. She was unable to
take her
CONTENTS
CASTILLO V. WCAB
.................... 1
Editor. HARVEY BROWN
Firm: SAMUELSEN, GONZALEZ,
VALENZUELA AND SORKOW
Phone: 310 831-0872
Address: 350 West 5th. St. #105 San
Pedro, CA 90731
Click here for printable version