Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

William Dixon v. Brian Andre d/b/a Andre Tuck Pointing

Decision date: March 6, 20067 pages

Summary

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversed the Administrative Law Judge's denial of workers' compensation benefits, finding that the employee sustained a compensable work-related injury from an unprovoked assault. The employee was entitled to compensation for medical expenses totaling $5,942.44 incurred as a result of the work-connected assault.

Archive Notice

This archive contains published Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission workers' compensation decisions reproduced for research convenience. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Practical guidance for this decision

Third-Party Injury Check

This workers' comp decision may point to a separate injury claim.

  • A driver, contractor, property owner, or equipment company may share fault.
  • The injury involved a vehicle, unsafe premises, defective equipment, or a non-employer vendor.
  • A serious injury or death may need both benefits review and civil-claim analysis.

Caption

Issued by THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
FINAL AWARD ALLOWING COMPENSATION
(Reversing Award and Decision of Administrative Law Judge)
Injury No.: 03-047330
Employee:William Dixon
Employer:Brian Andre d/b/a Andre Tuck Pointing
Insurer:Uninsured
Additional Party:Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund
Date of Accident:May 14, 2003
Place and County of Accident:St. Louis City, Missouri
The above-entitled workers' compensation case is submitted to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) for review as provided bysection 287.480 RSMo. We have reviewed the evidence, read the briefs of the parties, heard oral argument, and considered the entire record. Pursuant to section 286.090 RSMo, the Commission reverses the award and decision of the administrative law judge dated June 13, 2005. The award and decision of Administrative Law Judge Matthew D. Vacca, is attached hereto solely for reference.The dispositive issue is whether or not the employee sustained an injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, caused by the unprovoked assault against the employee. The administrative law judge denied workers' compensation benefits by determining that the employee failed to sustain his burden of proof concerning a work related assault. The Commission disagrees with this conclusion and reverses the award of the administrative law judge determining that the employee was injured due to a work-connected assault.
I. Assaults
In certain circumstances, assaults to an employee may be compensable, and in those claims the issue raised is whether theassaults arose out of the employment.
Statutory authority for compensation for injuries by assault is set forth in section 287.120.1 RSMo 2000, which provides, in part: "the term 'accident' as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to, injury or death of the employee caused by the unprovoked violence or assault against the employee by any person."
"Unprovoked" means that the injured employee must not be an aggressor.Dillard v. City of St. Louis, 685 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984); Loepke v. Opies Transport, Inc., 945 S.W.2d 655 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); and Wolfe v. Dubourg House/Arch Diocese of St. Louis, 93 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003).
The leading case on this issue isPerson v. Scullin Steel Company, 523 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1975), in which the Supreme Court held that there are three categories ofassault:
1. Assaults that are related to the dangerous nature of the employee's duties, or the environment in which the employee is required to work, or the outgrowth of frictions generated by the work itself, or that are in some way the result of a risk directly attributable to the employment.
2. Assaults committed in the course of private quarrels that are purely personal to the participants.
3. Assaults that result from irrational and unexplained incidents of a neutral origin that occur in the course of employment.
Assaults that fall in the first and third categories above are compensable. Only assaults that fall in the second category above are not compensable.

Whether an injury was an incident of the employment must be determined by the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Dillard v. City of St. Louis, 685 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984).

II. Facts

It was undisputed that employer failed to insure or self-insure for workers' compensation purposes as required by section 287.280 RSMo. It was further undisputed that due to the injuries sustained, employee incurred fair, reasonable, and necessary medical expenses to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury in the amount of $\ 5,942.44. Employee requested that if the injuries sustained were found to be attributable to a compensable assault that funds from the Second Injury Fund be withdrawn in the amount of $\ 5,942.44 to cover the medical expenses incurred. Employee also requested employer be liable for temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $\ 720.00 representing two weeks of temporary total disability at the agreed to compensation rate of $\$ 360.00 / \ 340.12. Other than medical expenses of $\ 5942.44 and temporary total disability in the amount of $\ 720.00, employee was not requesting payment of any additional benefits.

After reviewing the entire record, the Commission finds there is no evidence to support a finding that the assault in question was attributable to a private quarrel. Likewise there was no evidence adduced to support a finding that the assault in question was attributable to a neutral origin. The evidence does support a finding that the incident in question was a work-connected assault. Employer asserts as its defense that the incident in question was not an unprovoked assault, rather, employee was the aggressor; and consequently the injury sustained did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

In summary fashion, employee testified to the following events: upon completion of the workday on May 14, 2003, employee returned to employer's shop to put away equipment; employee purchased beer with employer's credit card which was consumed by employee and co-employees on the employer's premises; employer was present on the premises; at some point, a quarrel arose between employer and a co-employee, Dave Wilson; another employee, Jimmy Carpenter, was also involved; when the quarrel escalated to pushing and shoving, employee testified that he intervened, separating the participants and employee attempted to escort the two co-employees from the premises; and as employee was escorting the two co-employees down the street away from the employer's premises, employee was struck by the employer with a bat in the left lower ribs. Additional fisticuffs ensued before other employees separated the combatants and the fighting ceased.

Employer's version of the events was as follows: employer arrived at the premises at approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 2003, being advised by the employer's secretary that some of the employees had overcharged him for work done that day; the secretary also advised the employer that a customer had complained about the conduct of one of his employees that day while on the job; employer addressed the employees and while so doing beer cans were being thrown; employer then advised several of the employees they were discharged and they were ordered to remove themselves from the employer's property; and at that point, according to the employer, a fight broke out among himself and the employee, and the two co-employees, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Carpenter.

Employer testified that a baseball bat was thrown by employee that struck employer; and employer in retaliation threw it back at employee; and the fight continued between him and the three employees until other employees "broke it up."

Four additional employees testified, i.e., James Gaulden, Joseph Paul Hickman, Billy Martin and Otis Foster; none of these witnesses sponsored by the employer indicated that employee was the aggressor in this altercation.

Employer and insurer's Exhibit No. 1, St. Louis County Police Department Investigative Report, concluded that "due to the conflicting statements of the parties involved as well as those of the witnesses I was unable to determine a primary aggressor in the incident, ..."

III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The instant appeal does not present a novel issue to the Commission. If the facts and evidence presented by the employee are deemed to be credible, trustworthy and persuasive, the Commission could find that there was an injury sustained due to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employee's employment attributable to

an unprovoked assault; or, on the other hand, if the facts and evidence presented in behalf of the employer are more believable, persuasive, credible and worthy of belief, the Commission can find that there was no injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment due to the fact employee could be found to be the aggressor in a provoked assault.

The Commission finds the evidence proffered in behalf of the employee to be the more credible.

Employee credibly testified he was assaulted while attempting to breakup an altercation between the employer and two other co-employees. There is no credible evidence convincing the Commission that the employee was an aggressor in this altercation. The Commission has reviewed the testimony of all witnesses, reviewed all exhibits offered into evidence, and believes the version of events presented by the employee to be more believable and consistent, rather than the version presented by the employer, which is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions discrediting the employer's contention that employee was an aggressor in this assault.

The Commission concludes that employee was assaulted by the employer with a baseball bat after employee attempted to breakup a fight/quarrel between the employer and two other co-employees, which assault arose out of work connected frictions. The Commission does not find the employee was an aggressor during this altercation. Accordingly, since the assault was attributable to the outgrowth of frictions generated by the work itself, the injuries sustained by the employee are compensable.

IV. Benefits Awarded

Employee is awarded the following workers' compensation benefits: (1) temporary total disability benefits in the amount of $\ 720.00 representing two weeks' benefits at employee's compensation rate of $\$ 360.00 / \ 340.12; and (2) medical expenses in the amount of $\ 5,942.44.

Since the employer failed to insure or self-insure for workers' compensation purposes as required by section 287.280 RSMo, funds from the Second Injury Fund in the amount of $\ 5,942.44 may be withdrawn to cover the medical expenses incurred and awarded in the amount of $\ 5,942.44.

The compensation awarded to the employee shall be subject to a lien in the amount of 25 % of all payments ordered in favor of attorney John Larsen for necessary legal services rendered the employee.

Any past due compensation shall bear interest as provided by law.

Given at Jefferson City, State of Missouri, this $6^{\text {th }}$ day of March 2006.

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Ringer, Chairman

Alice A. Bartlett, Member

John J. Hickey, Member

Attest:

Secretary

AWARD

Employee: William Dixon

Injury No.: 03-047330

Dependents: $\quad \mathrm{N} / \mathrm{A} \quad$ Before the

Division of Workers’
Employer:Brain Andre d/b/a Andre Tuck PointingCompensation
Additional Party:Second Injury FundDepartment of Labor and Industrial
Relations of Missouri
Jefferson City, Missouri
Insurer:Uninsured
Hearing Date:May 26, 2005Checked by: MDV:tr
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW
1.Are any benefits awarded herein? No
2.Was the injury or occupational disease compensable under Chapter 287? No
3.Was there an accident or incident of occupational disease under the Law? No
4.Date of accident or onset of occupational disease: N/A
5.State location where accident occurred or occupational disease was contracted: N/A
6.Was above employee in employ of above employer at time of alleged accident or occupational disease? N/A
7.Did employer receive proper notice? N/A
8.Did accident or occupational disease arise out of and in the course of the employment? No
9.Was claim for compensation filed within time required by Law? Yes
10.Was employer insured by above insurer? Uninsured
11.Describe work employee was

Full decision text continues in the plain-text archive copy.

Related Decisions

The Commission reversed the administrative law judge's decision denying a workers' compensation claim, finding that the employee suffered a compensable accident on August 2, 2011, during an altercation with his supervisor. The decision rejected the ALJ's finding that the employee was the aggressor, noting the supervisor's history of initiating verbal and physical confrontations with subordinates.

assault8,010 words

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's award allowing workers' compensation benefits for Sally D. Swartz, who was struck by a client on June 23, 2007, while employed at Nevada Habilitation Center. The Second Injury Fund was held liable for permanent total disability benefits of $238.31 per week beginning June 23, 2012.

assault2,976 words

The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying workers' compensation benefits to Georgia Goriola for an alleged attack by a facility resident. The claim was denied because the injury was determined not to arise out of and in the course of employment under Missouri workers' compensation law.

assault1,685 words

Brame v. Applebee's(2009)

November 17, 2009

reversed

The Commission reversed the Administrative Law Judge's decision and found that the employee's injuries from a coworker's assault arose out of and in the course of employment, as the assault resulted from work friction rather than being of neutral origin. The assault occurred when the coworker followed the employee home and attacked her after an altercation at work, making the claim compensable for temporary total disability, past medical expenses, and permanent partial disability benefits.

assault4,815 words
affirmed

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's award of workers' compensation benefits to Serafin Carpio for injuries sustained in an assault by a co-employee on February 23, 2005. The claimant was awarded $12,587.20 in total compensation, including unpaid medical expenses and permanent partial disability benefits representing 7.5% disability of the body as a whole.

assault2,812 words