Iowa Workers' Compensation - Is fighting on the job ever covered?
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
Is the pickax victim entitled to Work. Comp. benefits when he's hit in the head by a coworker? Fighting on the job may or may not be covered under the workers' compensation act. It all depends on the facts.
Is the pickax victim entitled to Work. Comp. benefits when he's hit in the head by a coworker?
The Sioux City Journal reported that an Ellsworth, Iowa man was charged with willful injury after he allegedly struck a co-worker in the head with a pickax. The two were working together on a construction job, started arguing and the one ended up being struck. For this discussion assume this was an intentional act. Are injuries from intentional acts covered under Iowa's Workers' Compensation Act? The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Whether you consider this act as intentional or an accident is up for discussion and will depend on the facts at hearing but whether the medical bills will be covered under Iowa's Workers' Compensation Act is a totally different issue. The answer is maybe; it depends on whether the argument was over something that is personal to the worker who was struck. Here is what I mean by personal. Let's say the two workers had an interest in the same woman, had a previous history of bad blood between the two and it simply carried over into the workplace. That argument has nothing to do with the employer's business or the risks inherent in construction work. It's personal to the victim. Who the workers date or have a personal interest has nothing to do with construction work.
Now on the other hand let's say the argument is about one worker being angry over work habits or the quality of the work the one worker is performing. Then it's about construction work and how it should be accomplished and that is about the employer's business. Of course in trial work evidence is rarely so clean and neat, so the answer can never be definitively stated. Here is what I mean by this. The underlying bad blood between the two could be over personal matters that create jealousy between the two. And the argument at work is over how the one is doing his work but really it's about the personal jealousy, having little if anything to do with the construction work. The construction work is just an excuse to get mad and then justify whacking him in the head.
Let's get to the legal mumbo jumbo. Here is a quote directly from Laman vs. Vick's Place, File No. 5003386:
The claimant has the burden of proving by of preponderance of the evidence that the alleged injury actually occurred and that it both arose out of and in the course of the employment. Ciha v. Quaker Oats Co., 552 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1996); Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1996). The words "arising out of" referred to the cause or source of the injury. The words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. 2800 Corp. v. Fernandez, 528 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 1995). An injury arises out of the employment when a causal relationship exists between the injury and the employment. Miedema, 551 N.W.2d 309. The injury must be a rational consequence of a hazard connected with the employment and not merely incidental to the employment. Koehler Electric v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000); Miedema, 551 N.W. 2d 309. An injury occurs "in the course of" employment when it happens within a period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be when performing employment duties and while the employee is fulfilling those duties or doing an activity incidental to them. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143.
Note the operative language: "The injury must be a rational consequence of a hazard connected with the employment and not merely incidental to the employment." In RYAN vs. E&K Of Omaha, Inc., File No. 5019087 the construction crew boss is attacked by a subordinate after sending him off the crew. The crew member was found to be angry over pay issues but the deputy also found he had harassed the subordinate in a personal way and had been drinking.
Ryan's injury occurred in the course of employment in that he was at the time in a traveling status attributable to the employment. However, he has failed to establish that the injury arose out the employment. The injury resulted from a drunken assault he himself initiated against a fellow employee, but off the job and following a series of visits to the employee's motel room that in context are best seen as harassment, if for reasons unknown. The nature of the employment did not expose Ryan to any such risk and the risk was in no sense a rational consequence of any hazard connected with the employment. Defendants accordingly prevail.
An injury occurs in the course of employment when an employee is where he was directed to be, and in the process of performing, about to perform, or engaging in acts incidental to the required job duties. See, Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W.2d 309, 311 (Iowa 1996). An injury must also arise out of the employment, and does so only if it is a "rational consequence of the hazard connected with the employment." Burt v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 247 Iowa 691, 700; 73 N.W.2d 732, 737 (1955). The "arising out of" element is satisfied if "the nature of the employment exposes the employee to risk of such an injury." Hanson v. Reichelt, 452 N.W.2d 164, 168 (Iowa 1990).
Also see MAIDEN vs. DUBUQUE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, July 10, 2003, File Number: 5006405D where benefits were awarded to a teacher injured by two students who were fighting.
These decisions are highly dependent upon the facts of each case and can go either way. So get the names of the witnesses along with their contact information, get it to your lawyer and then keep your fingers crossed. And as for the aggressor you'd better hope it is covered because if it is you probably won't get sued for money damages for the tort.