Baggett v. B & G Const., 72651
| Decision Date | 19 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 72651,72651 |
| Citation | 21 Kan.App.2d 347,900 P.2d 857 |
| Parties | James T. BAGGETT, Claimant/Appellee, v. B & G CONSTRUCTION, Respondent/Appellant, and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier/Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An injury must arise out of and occur in the course of a worker's employment to be compensable under the Workers Compensation Act. The injury must have some causal connection to the employment to arise out of it.
2. When an injury is attributable to a personal condition of the employee, and no other factors contribute to the injury, there is no causal connection to the worker's employment and the injury is not compensable under the Workers Compensation Act. If the injury results from the concurrence of a personal condition and an employment hazard, the hazard provides sufficient causal connection to the employment and the injury is compensable.
3. Where an employee falls victim to an assault stemming from a purely personal matter while on the job and his or her injuries are exacerbated by an employment hazard, it is held that the injury arose out of the employment and is compensable.
Julie A.N. Sample and Kip A. Kubin, of Payne & Jones, Chartered, Overland Park, for appellant.
Brian D. Pistotnik, of Brian and Tamara Pistotnik, P.A., Wichita, for appellee.
Before BRAZIL, P.J., LEWIS, J., and JAMES W. BOUSKA, District Judge, Assigned.
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.
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, 824 P.2d 1001.
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, 824 P.2d 1001. 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, 824 P.2d 1001.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Cnh America LLC, 97,707.
...or exiting from his own truck while on a vacation trip." 5 Kan.App.2d at 300, 615 P.2d 168. Martin cites Baggett v. B & G Construction, 21 Kan.App.2d 347, 900 P.2d 857 (1995), for support; however, the claimant in Baggett was awarded compensation after an assault by a coworker caused the cl......
-
Bach v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co.
...that exacerbated her injuries that is not present virtually everywhere else. Bach also relies on Baggett v. B & G Construction, 21 Kan.App.2d 347, 900 P.2d 867 (1995), for support. Baggett was on the jobsite measuring for a stairway. He was pushed by another employee who wanted Baggett to r......
-
Scott v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
...(1995). Baggett involved a claimant who was injured when he was assaulted by a coemployee and fell into an open hole on the job site. The Baggett court noted that in Bennett, we looked at the injury and whether it was exacerbated by employment conditions. The Baggett court held that because......