The Commissioner will probably rule that Brill’s injury is not eligible for workers compensation under the personal comfort doctrine. When a worker is injured on the job, they can request compensation from the employer. The courts have recognized that injuries may occur during employee breaks and, although employees are not technically “on the job,” they may still be eligible to request compensation if the injury falls within the bounds of the personal comfort doctrine. For an injury to be compensable under the personal doctrine, the injury must arise from behavior that is considered to be an imperative act, and from behavior that has a logical nexus to the worker’s employment.
The Commissioner will probably rule that Brill’s injury is not …show more content…
The courts have consistently ruled that in order for an injury to be compensable under the personal comfort doctrine, there must be a logical nexus between the cause of the injury and the employee 's job. In McCoy v. Easley Cotton Mills, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that Mr. McCoy’s injury was compensable because the injury arose out of his employment. While on an employer-permitted smoke break, Mr. McCoy was accidentally struck by a copper pipe, which caused him to lose his eye. The court reasoned that because the copper pipe was used within the mill, it was natural to the workplace and, therefore, Mr. McCoy’s injury arose out of his employment. Because Mr. McCoy’s injury arose out of his employment, he was eligible to receive workers compensation. In Dukes v Rural Metro Corporation, on the other hand, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that Mr. Dukes’ injury was not compensable because the cause of Mr. Dukes’ injury was not naturally or logically connected to his place of employment. Mr. Dukes, while outside on a smoke break, was examining a gun owned by a co-worker when the gun accidentally discharged a round into his leg. The court ruled that while smoking is a necessary comfort to some, playing with guns is not. The court reasoned that the personal comfort doctrine did not apply in this case because there was no nexus connecting his job to the gun. The courts in the McCoy and Dukes cases both ruled that there must be a logical nexus between the cause of the injury and the workplace. The skateboard ridden by Brill at the time of his injury was a Baker board, a brand of skateboard not found at OSI, and therefore the Commissioner will likely rule that the skateboard was not natural to Brill’s work environment, and his injury is therefore not
The Commissioner will probably rule that Brill’s injury is not …show more content…
The courts have consistently ruled that in order for an injury to be compensable under the personal comfort doctrine, there must be a logical nexus between the cause of the injury and the employee 's job. In McCoy v. Easley Cotton Mills, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that Mr. McCoy’s injury was compensable because the injury arose out of his employment. While on an employer-permitted smoke break, Mr. McCoy was accidentally struck by a copper pipe, which caused him to lose his eye. The court reasoned that because the copper pipe was used within the mill, it was natural to the workplace and, therefore, Mr. McCoy’s injury arose out of his employment. Because Mr. McCoy’s injury arose out of his employment, he was eligible to receive workers compensation. In Dukes v Rural Metro Corporation, on the other hand, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that Mr. Dukes’ injury was not compensable because the cause of Mr. Dukes’ injury was not naturally or logically connected to his place of employment. Mr. Dukes, while outside on a smoke break, was examining a gun owned by a co-worker when the gun accidentally discharged a round into his leg. The court ruled that while smoking is a necessary comfort to some, playing with guns is not. The court reasoned that the personal comfort doctrine did not apply in this case because there was no nexus connecting his job to the gun. The courts in the McCoy and Dukes cases both ruled that there must be a logical nexus between the cause of the injury and the workplace. The skateboard ridden by Brill at the time of his injury was a Baker board, a brand of skateboard not found at OSI, and therefore the Commissioner will likely rule that the skateboard was not natural to Brill’s work environment, and his injury is therefore not