An appeal court turned a decision on the employment compensation commission that denies the workers' compensation claims for damages that he arose when he was stuck at work by a former employee.
On Monday, the Appellate Court of Virginia in Alexandria held the Labor Compensation Commission wrongly finding that the previous employee's motive was relevant to the question of whether employee abuses arose from employment in King v. DTH Contract Services Inc.
Employee Attacked by his former colleague, who then committed suicide. The assailant's motive for the stabbing was never discovered.
The worker worked as an overnight support for DTH Contract Services Inc., based in Dunn, North Carolina, and was responsible for keeping the toilets clean, draining garbage and reporting any criminal activity to the police during his 22:00 to 6pm shift. When he did not clean or round, he was ordered to remain locked in the office.
Earlier morning hours on July 1
The worker sought compensation for workers, who were denied by a split commission, who held it because the worker knew the attacker – and could not prove that the attacker's motives were employment-related rather than personal – that the attack was not random and therefore his injuries did not come from his employment. Worker accused.
The worker claimed that he could prove that the abuse arose from his employment – despite the unknown motive – because his employment as an overnight support accounted for him greater risk of assault than the public. He argued that he was working alone all night, locked in an office when he did not round the "increased risk of abuse" and also presented legislation introduced at Virginia House which outlined the large number of thefts, abuses and abuses of drugs that occurred at the state highway stop.
The Appellate Court argued that the Commission was mistaken for the accused's motive was everything that was important in determining whether the offense arose from employment and refused to consider whether the worker's workplace generated greater risk of abuse. The court found no evidence that the attacker directed the worker for personal reasons and noted that other cases in the state have found that when an opponent's motive is not unknowable, a workmate does not need to determine that the attacker's motive is not personal.
The Court found that the Commission failed to end it because the employee and the attacker knew each other that "the abuse between them could not be an increased risk of abuse". The Court argued that the Commission was not excluded from considering other evidence to satisfy the requirement that the injury arose from the risk of employment and wrongful treatment of motives as the only relevant issue.
As a result, the court withdrew and annulled the case to the Commission.
DTH Contract The services are no longer operational and therefore could not be reached for comments.