In Baby's Room v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Stairs), 860 A.2d 200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) the Court explained that each case of this nature must be decided on its own facts. In expounding upon the meaning of the personal comfort doctrine, the Court indicated that "neither small temporary departures from work to administer to personal comforts or convenience, nor inconsequential or innocent departures break the course of employment." Id., 860 A.2d at 203. It further stated that the term also "embraces intervals of leisure" defined in part as "freedom or spare time provided by the cessation of activities," id. at 204, and recognizes that breaks allowing employees to administer to their personal comfort better enable them to perform their jobs and are considered to be in furtherance of the employer's business. Id. at 204 n.7. As examples, it cited cases involving a restroom break, picking up takeout food for lunch and getting a cup of coffee before meeting with customers within the course of employment. See Montgomery Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Armstrong), 793 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002); and U.S. Airways; D'Agata Nat'l, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (D'Agata), 84 Pa. Commw. 527, 479 A.2d 98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), respectively.