This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A worker was punched by his supervisor during an argument at a construction site after the worker complained to their mutual superintendent about the supervisor's actions. The worker sustained injuries to his jaw and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming the incident was unexpected and therefore accidental (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: Granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the worker's injuries were non-accidental and outside the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Worker (Appellant): Argued that the punch was unexpected from his perspective, making the injury accidental and compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act (paras 3, 8-10).
- Employer (Appellees): Contended that the supervisor's intentional act of punching the worker rendered the injury non-accidental and therefore not compensable under the Act (paras 3, 7, 9).
Legal Issues
- Does a co-worker's intentional tort against another worker constitute an "accident" under the Workers' Compensation Act?
- Can the worker recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries caused by the intentional act of a co-worker?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Workers' Compensation Administration's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 14).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The court held that the intentional nature of the supervisor's act does not preclude the worker from recovering workers' compensation benefits. The determination of whether an injury is accidental under the Workers' Compensation Act is made from the perspective of the injured worker. Since the worker did not expect or design the incident, the injury was deemed accidental from his perspective (paras 5-10).
The court also clarified that intentional torts by co-workers are generally considered accidental under the Act unless the employer's intentional or willful conduct contributed to the injury or the co-worker's actions can be imputed to the employer under an alter ego theory. In this case, there was no evidence of such employer conduct or relationship (paras 11-12).
The court declined to address the worker's argument regarding the potential recovery of both workers' compensation benefits and tort damages, as the issue of tort damages was not before the court (para 13).