Trigon Holdings, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 74 A.3d 359

Employer Trigon Holdings, Inc. finishes medical or aerospace parts; claimant Kenneth Griffith worked as a gang leader, supervising machine operation.
Claimant’s duties included examining equipment and troubleshooting or obtaining tooling; he was not a machine operator.
On May 30, 2008, about two hours into the midnight shift, Claimant left his assigned duties for a few minutes to attend to personal work in the tool and die room, telling coworkers he would be back in a couple of minutes.
While polishing a bolt for his child’s go-cart, Claimant’s left thumb was injured by a lathe, requiring emergency care and subsequent medical treatment.
Claimant was unable to perform his restricted duties from May 30, 2008 until December 1, 2008; Employer suspended him for five days for performing personal work on company time.
Claimant filed a workers’ compensation claim on August 28, 2008; the WCJ granted the petition on March 31, 2010; the Board affirmed January 18, 2013; Employer timely appealed to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injury occurred in course and scope	Griffith argues injury occurred within course of employment despite temporary personal work.	Trigon contends departure for personal work was a break from employment and not within course and scope.	Board erred; injury did not occur in course and scope.
Whether the WCJ issued a reasoned decision	Employer contends failure to show reasoned decision due to lack of evidence for personal-task practice.	Employer claims the WCJ’s decision was not reasoned under §422(a).	Waived; court otherwise finds WCJ issued a reasoned decision.

U.S. Airways v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Dixon), 764 A.2d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (two situations define course of employment; liberally construed)
Lewis v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Andy Frain Servs., Inc.), 29 A.3d 851 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (course of employment determination is a question of law based on WCJ findings)
Henry v. Lit Bros., 165 A.2d 406 (Pa. Super. 1960) (employer not insurer of safety; injury on employer premises during hours of employment)
Kmart Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Fitzsimmons), 748 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000) (remedial nature of Act tempered by limitations on employer responsibility)
The Baby’s Room v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Stairs), 860 A.2d 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (recognizes scope of course of employment in casual departure contexts)
Penn State Univ. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Smith), 15 A.3d 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (departure from work assessment lacks fixed standard; depends on facts)