In Giant Eagle, Inc. v Tierra Baker (WCAB), (decided 07/15/2026), the Commonwealth Court continued to liberally construe what it means to be in the Course and Scope of Employment. This is a trend which has been occurring over the last several years.
In this case the Claimant, a pharmacy tech, had two mandatory 15-minuted breaks. She had to punch in and out, and she was allowed to leave the store and engage in whatever activity she desired during her breaks.
During one of the breaks, she left Giant Eagle to get lunch, and while crossing the street (jaywalking) in front of the store, she was struck by a motor vehicle.
The Employer denied the claim on the basis that the Claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. After several appeals and remands, the Commonwealth Court held that the claim was compensable. The court reasoned that Claimant was getting lunch, so the personal comfort doctrine (attending to personal needs) applied. The break was also so short that Claimant only had time to pick up her lunch, and she had no time for other activities which may have removed her from the course and scope.
Course and scope cases are extremely fact specific. Claims professionals and employers are urged to discuss these fact patterns with their defense counsel.
