One of the most common questions that arises in the field of workers’ comp law is “was the injury or illness caused within the ‘course and scope of employment?'” While some workers’ comp situations are straightforward – such as when an injury occurs in the workplace while an employee is carrying out his or her normal day-to-day activities – others require a more in-depth analysis of what exactly the “course and scope” of an employee’s job encompasses.
There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for whether something falls within this definition. Although there are many examples that have been addressed since the inception of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the unique nature of each case requires a careful analysis of the facts and situations that led to the injury or illness. At Martin Law, we have helped many clients throughout Pennsylvania address this issue and seek the benefits they require.
This post further addresses the topic of “course and scope of employment,” and provides a particularly striking example of how this issue is analyzed.
The case discussed in that post involved a question of whether a convenience store worker had abandoned his work – which would mean he was ineligible for workers’ comp benefits – by chasing a would-be thief into the parking lot and suffering injuries as a result.