The phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” (often abbreviated as AOE/COE) forms the backbone of workers' compensation law. This two-part test defines which injuries or illnesses are work-related and thus eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Subject to certain limited exceptions, for a claim to be compensable, it must meet both components of this test: (1) the injury must “arise out of” employment, establishing a causal connection between the job and the injury, and (2) it must occur “in the course of” employment, meaning it happened during the time, place, and scope of job-related activities.

A. "Arising Out of" Employment (Causation)

This component focuses on the causal link between the injury or illness and the employee's job duties. Different legal tests are used to determine causation, and jurisdictions may apply one or more of the following:

• Increased Risk Test: This test examines whether the job increased the risk of injury or illness compared to that faced by the general public. If the job exposed the worker to heightened danger, the injury is likely compensable.
  • Example: A construction worker falling from scaffolding faces an increased risk compared to an office worker.
• Positional Risk Doctrine: Under this doctrine, an injury may be compensable if the employee would not have been in the harmful position "but for" their job, even if the risk itself isn't unique to the employment.
  • Example: A delivery driver injured in a car accident while on their route could be covered because their employment placed them in that particular location.
• Actual Risk Test: This broader test asks whether the injury was a recognized risk of the employment, without comparing it to risks faced by the general public.
  • Example: A firefighter injured during a training drill could be covered because injury is an inherent risk of the job.
• Causation Standards – Proximate Cause vs. But-For Causation: While many jurisdictions accept “but-for” causation (the injury wouldn’t have happened but for the employment), others require a more direct link, known as proximate causation (sometimes referred to as “legal causation” in the context of workers’ compensation), meaning the injury must be a foreseeable consequence of the job.
  • Example: An injury caused by faulty equipment may be compensable under proximate cause if the employer knew or should have known about the hazard.

B. "In the course of" Employment (Time, Place, and Activity)

This component considers whether the injury occurred within the time, location, and scope of employment. Several doctrines help define the boundaries of when an injury qualifies as having occurred "in the course of" employment:

• Personal Comfort Doctrine: This doctrine allows injuries sustained during brief breaks for personal needs (e.g., using the restroom, getting a coffee) to be compensable, as these activities are incidental to employment.
  • Example: An employee slipping and falling while getting water in the breakroom could still be covered under this doctrine.
• Special Errand Rule: If an employee is injured while performing a task outside their normal duties or work hours but at the direction of the employer, the injury is usually compensable.
  • Example: A worker injured while picking up supplies after hours for a project could be covered.
• Deviations from Employment and Dual-Purpose Doctrine: Brief personal deviations from work may not disqualify a claim, as long as they are minor. Under this doctrine, compensation may be allowed if an activity serves both a personal and business purpose, as long as the business purpose is significant.
  • Example: A salesperson injured while delivering a package and stopping for a personal errand could still be covered because the delivery serves a business purpose.

Exceptions and Limitations

While AOE/COE are the guiding principles for determining compensability, several exceptions limit eligibility. These exceptions can overlap or even cancel each other out depending on the facts of the case:

• Intoxication: Injuries caused by the employee being under the influence of drugs or alcohol are generally not compensable if intoxication was the direct cause. However, if the intoxication did not contribute to the injury, compensation might still be awarded.
  • Example: An intoxicated employee injured while performing a special errand might still receive compensation if intoxication did not cause the injury, canceling out the intoxication exception.
• Going and Coming Rule (Commuting): Injuries sustained during regular commutes are usually not compensable, but exceptions exist if the employer provides transportation or if the injury occurs during a special errand.
  • Example: An employee driving a company car to a job site might be covered if injured during the commute.
• Horseplay: Injuries from reckless or unauthorized behavior are typically excluded, but if the employer tolerates horseplay, this may cancel out the exclusion.
  • Example: If horseplay is a common and accepted part of the work culture, injuries resulting from it might still be compensable.
• Recreational Activities: Injuries during social or recreational events are usually not covered unless the activity is required or significantly related to the job.
  • Example: An injury during a mandatory team-building event would likely be compensable.
• Acts of God: Injuries from natural disasters are generally not compensable unless the job placed the worker at an increased risk.
  • Example: A worker injured during a hurricane while working outdoors might be covered if their job inherently involved exposure to that risk.