 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BAGGETT v. B & G CONSTRUCTION5/19/1995
REPORTER'S NOTE: Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated July 14, 1995, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (1994 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 39).
B & G Construction (B & G) appeals the decision of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) that James T. Baggett's injury arose out of his employment. We affirm.
Baggett first sustained injury while working for B & G in November 1991. He injured his hands and back while helping a co-worker lift a gable truss. Baggett sought treatment and continued to work.
Baggett was injured again on December 6, 1991. He was at the job site estimating measurements for a flight of stairs when he was pushed from behind. A co-worker demanded the return of $3 Baggett had borrowed earlier. Baggett turned around to see who pushed him and backed up a few steps. Baggett fell about 12 feet into a hole that led into the basement, landing on a concrete floor. He sustained a serious head injury and a fractured clavicle. Baggett was in a coma for 12 days and remained in the hospital for several weeks.
The Special Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the December 6, 1991, injury did not arise out of Baggett's employment because it resulted from an assault by a co-worker over a personal debt. Baggett appealed the decision. The Board reversed the decision of the ALJ, holding that the injury was compensable. B & G appeals.
B & G argues that the Board erred in holding that Baggett's injury arose out of his employment.
"The scope of review in a workers compensation appeal is that applicable in other civil cases. . . . An appellate court may substitute its judgment on questions of law, but on disputed issues of fact, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court." Elder v. Arma Mobile Transit Co., 253 Kan. 824, 826-27, 861 P.2d 822 (1993).
An injury must arise out of and occur in the course of a worker's employment to be compensable under the Workers Compensation Act. K.S.A. 44-501(a). B & G does not dispute that Baggett's injury occurred in the course of his employment. B & G contends that the injury did not arise out of Baggett's employment because it resulted from an attack by another employee.
The Board disagreed, relying on Bennett v. Wichita Fence Co., 16 Kan. App. 2d 458, 824 P.2d 1001, rev. denied 250 Kan. 804 (1992). In Bennett, an employee who suffered from epileptic seizures blacked out while driving a delivery truck for Wichita Fence. The truck hit a tree, injuring Bennett. The sole question on appeal was whether Bennett's injury arose out of his employment. 16 Kan. App. 2d at 459.
This court noted that to arise out of employment, the injury must have some causal connection to the employment. 16 Kan. App. 2d at 459. This court noted an early Kansas case which recognized the rule that when an injury is attributable to a personal condition of the employee, and no other factors contribute to the injury, the injury is not compensable. If the injury results, however, from the concurrence of a personal condition and an employment hazard, the injury is compensable. 16 Kan. App. 2d at 460.
The court concluded that the conditions of Bennett's employment, i.e., driving the company vehicle, placed him at increased risk of injury. The court reasoned that the "increased risk provided the necessary causal connection between his injury and his employment," thus the injury arose out of his employment and was c
Page 1 2 Kansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|