Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania: Rest Break Activity May be Covered by Workers’ Compensation
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in PA |
EFFECTIVE JUL 15, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Baker, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court said that an employee who is injured while on a rest break may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Here, a pharmacy technician at a grocery store was seriously injured when she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street directly in front of her workplace. She was on one of her two mandatory 15-minute breaks at the time, heading to grab lunch at a nearby restaurant. The employe filed for workers’ compensation benefits, but the employer disputed the claim, arguing that she was on her own time and not doing anything work-related when she was hit, so her injury shouldn’t be covered.
The case bounced back and forth: a workers’ compensation judge initially sided with the employer and denied benefits, reasoning that the employee was simply on a personal errand (getting lunch) when the accident happened. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board disagreed and sent the case back for reconsideration, applying a long-standing legal principle called the “personal comfort doctrine.” This doctrine holds that when an employee briefly steps away from work to tend to basic needs (like eating, smoking a cigarette, or getting a drink of water) they’re still considered to be “in the course of employment” for compensation purposes, because taking care of those basic needs is viewed as an ordinary and expected part of any job, not a break from it. On reconsideration, a different judge granted the employee’s benefits, and the Board upheld that decision.
The employer then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the employee’s injury shouldn’t count because her 15-minute break was a formal, scheduled break during which she had the freedom to do whatever she wanted, unlike a quick, informal pause to grab a snack while still effectively “on duty.” Based on historical precedent, the court found that the key factor isn’t whether a break is official or informal, but how much genuine free time and flexibility the worker actually had. Because the employee’s break was so short (just 15 minutes) that she barely had time to do anything besides cross the street and grab food before having to return, the court found she didn’t have meaningful autonomy to pursue unrelated personal activities — she was essentially just tending to a basic need (hunger) in the small window she was given.
The court ultimately ruled in the employee’s favor, agreeing that her injury was still covered by workers’ compensation because getting food during a mandatory, brief break counts as an “act of ministration” to her personal needs rather than a true departure from work duties. The court also noted that it didn’t matter that the employee was technically jaywalking when she was hit; under workers’ compensation law, an employee’s carelessness generally doesn’t disqualify them from receiving benefits. As a result, the court affirmed the ruling awarding the employee disability benefits.
Action Items
- Review workers’ compensation claims with legal counsel before taking adverse action.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase