When “Work From Home” Meets Workers’ Compensation: Where Do the Lines Fall?
Imagine this scenario: A payroll specialist is working from her home office on a summer afternoon. She gets up from her desk, twists her foot, and falls against a nearby closet door, sustaining a contusion to her arm and hip. She reports the injury as work-related because it happened during her workday, while she was set up at her home workstation.
Is this compensable under Texas workers’ compensation law? The answer is not straightforward.
Under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury is compensable if it “arises out of and in the course and scope of employment.” These are distinct requirements. “Course and scope” asks whether the employee was engaged in furthering the employer’s business. “Arises out of” asks whether the conditions of employment contributed to the injury.
Falls have always tested these boundaries. Most jurisdictions deny compensation for idiopathic falls—those caused by personal conditions such as fainting, dizziness, or simple missteps—unless the employment subjects the worker to some special hazard. Texas, however, has taken a minority approach, allowing compensation where a fall occurs on the employer’s premises and workplace conditions, such as a hard floor, contribute to the injury.
In Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Page and Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Garcia, the Texas Supreme Court explained that even if the cause of the fall is personal or unexplained, compensation may still be allowed if the employee was furthering the employer’s business and the conditions of the workplace contributed to the injury.
Although Page is often cited for the proposition that idiopathic falls are compensable in Texas, that is a misreading of the opinion. Instead, the Court in Page actually remanded for trial, emphasizing two points. First, the issue was not only whether the surface contributed to Page’s injury, but also “whether the surface represented such a hazard within the scope of Page’s employment as to allow recovery for the fall and resultant injury.” Second, the Court held that the evidence raised “a fact issue of whether the injury originated out of Page’s employment, that is whether there was a sufficient causal connection between the conditions under which his work was required to be performed and his resulting injury.” In every case applying this framework, the contributing hazard was located on the employer’s premises and under the employer’s custody and control. The rationale seems to be clear: compensability rests on the employer’s responsibility for workplace conditions.
Extending this reasoning to home offices would be a significant departure. A home is privately owned and arranged by the employee; the employer has no ability to inspect, maintain, or control the conditions there. To treat every home-based fall as compensable would move Texas from being a minority jurisdiction to a minority of a minority, shifting the allocation of risk well beyond what the Workers’ Compensation Act has historically required. Courts have resisted imposing liability for hazards that are essentially personal or those faced by the general public, absent clear legislative direction. This is the same principle that governs most travel cases: road hazards are risks of the public, not the employment, unless the employer requires and controls the conditions of travel.
For clients evaluating these kinds of claims, it is essential to examine both elements. First, was the employee engaged in an activity that furthered the employer’s business at the time of injury? Second, did the conditions of employment contribute to the injury, and if so, did those conditions represent a hazard within the scope of employment? As Page emphasizes, contribution by itself is not enough; the connection must be to conditions the employer required for the work. In every case upholding compensation, those conditions were part of an employer-controlled environment. A home environment, by contrast, is personal and self-arranged, and Texas courts have never extended compensability that far. Division decisions are not precedent and are not binding in future cases. Therefore, until the Legislature or courts directly addresses work-from-home arrangements, claims arising solely from conditions of the home environment should be carefully scrutinized.
If you have any follow up questions at all, please reach out to the WC experts at FOL any time: GQS@fol.com.
FOLIO
