We had nothing to do with this case, but it shows what it takes to prevail when injured on the job as a result of a fight. The short version is that the fight has to be about work and you can't be the aggressor. The following is from the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin:
Claimant Darius Wicks suffered an injury to his left arm at work as a delivery truck driver for an appliance retailer on Jan. 6, 2002, as a result of a physical altercation with his supervisor about the claimant's delivery schedule. The claimant was charged with and convicted of battery in connection with the incident. He then sought workers' compensation benefits.
An arbitrator concluded that the altercation was "related" to his job but denied compensation because the claimant's criminal conviction collaterally estopped him from asserting that his supervisor was the aggressor. The Workers' Compensation Commission rejected the arbitrator's finding, saying that since the claimant wasn't the "initial aggressor" he was entitled to medical expenses, temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability.
On judicial review, the circuit court set aside the commission's decision and the claimant appealed. The appeals court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the commission's decision in favor of the claimant.
The appeals court said that an injury is said to arise out of one's employment if the injury had its origin in some risk connected with or incidental to the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Therefore, the court said, where a physical altercation occurring at one's place of employment involves a personal dispute unrelated to work, any injury that results is not considered to have arisen out of the employment.
On the other hand, the court said, any injury resulting from a fight between two employees involving a work-related issue is considered a risk incidental to the employment and is therefore compensable. However, the court said that the principle known as the "aggressor defense" provides that even if a fight is work-related, an injury to the aggressor is not compensable.
The appeals court said the rationale for the aggressor defense is that the claimant's own rashness negates the causal connection between the employment and the injury so that the work is neither the proximate nor a contributing cause of the injury.
In this case, the appeals court said the evidence showed that the claimant's supervisor tackled the claimant and broke his arm after the claimant complained about one of his deliveries. When the claimant asked the supervisor why he had attacked him, the supervisor responded by pushing and striking the claimant once or twice.
The appeals court found that the evidence supported the commission's decision to award benefits to the claimant on the basis that the supervisor was the initial aggressor. The appeals court rejected the arbitrator's finding that the claimant was collaterally estopped from asserting that the supervisor was the aggressor in view of the claimant's battery conviction.
We are workers' compensation attorneys that help people with Illinois work injuries anywhere in IL via our statewide network of attorneys. Contact Us and we will answer your questions or find the right lawyer for your situation.
.
