Joseph Eisel v. City of South Charleston, 20-0356

Claimant Joseph Eisel, a golf-course manager, was struck by a train on August 10, 2018 while driving off-premises to buy his preferred coffee creamer during work hours.
Eisel was clocked in at the time; he testified purchasing creamer was a routine part of his duties (inventory/coffee for staff/customers) and that he had previously left during work for that purpose.
Employer affidavits said employees must clock out for personal errands, the course maintained ample creamer on-site, Eisel was not authorized to buy creamer for the employer, and he was never reimbursed for prior purchases.
The claims administrator initially rejected the claim; the Office of Judges reversed and found the injury compensable based on practice/acquiescence and lack of supervisory presence.
The Board of Review reversed the Office of Judges, concluding Eisel left on a personal errand, the trip did not benefit the employer, and the injury was not in the course of employment; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injury was "in the course of employment" (compensability)	Eisel: trip was a routine work duty (inventory/coffee for customers & staff) and he was regularly allowed to leave for creamer	Employer: trip was a personal errand, employees must clock out, employer already had creamer, no authorization or reimbursement	Held: Not compensable — personal errand; no causal connection to employment
Whether employer's acquiescence/practice created authorization/benefit	Eisel: prior practice and coworkers’ testimony show acquiescence and implied permission	Employer: isolated personal conduct; no formal authorization, no employer benefit or reimbursement	Held: Board credited employer — no sufficient evidence employer benefitted or authorized the trip
Whether use of a personal vehicle removes coverage	Eisel: using personal vehicle did not remove course-of-employment status given lack of notice of vehicle policy and past practice	Employer: if acting for employer, should have used employer vehicle; use of personal vehicle indicates personal errand	Held: Court agreed with Board that personal-vehicle use did not create compensability absent employer direction or benefit

Hammons v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577 (2015) (standard of review and deference to Board of Review decisions)
Justice v. W. Va. Off. Ins. Comm’r, 230 W. Va. 80 (2012) (de novo review for legal questions arising from Board decisions)
Davies v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330 (2011) (standards for appellate review of workers’ compensation matters)
Barnett v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 153 W. Va. 796 (1970) (injury compensable only if received in the course of and resulting from employment)