Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc.

Decision Date27 September 2022
Docket Number2021-WC-01261-COA
PartiesJONATHAN HOLLIS APPELLANT v. ACOUSTICS, INC. AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MS, INC. APPELLEES
CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/2021

APPEALED: COMMISSION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARSHALL JACKSON GOFF

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: CATHERINE BRYANT BELL

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND SMITH, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, J.

¶1. Jonathan Hollis was injured during an altercation on a job site and sought workers' compensation benefits. The administrative judge found that Hollis was not injured in an incident arising out of and in the course of his employment-a requirement for compensability. The Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission agreed. Hollis appeals, arguing that he sustained a compensable injury. We find the Commission's order is supported by substantial evidence and therefore affirm.

FACTS

¶2. On September 7, 2019, Hollis was employed by Acoustics Inc. as an acoustical grid installer, working on grid installation at the Coahoma County jail. Employees from other companies, who were painting, installing plumbing, and performing other tasks, were also at the job site. One company with employees at the jail was Hi-Tek, a sprinkler installation company. Hi-Tek employees Matthew Chandler Blanks and Conner Self (a Hi-Tek supervisor) were on site that day and had chosen to play Christian rap music on a phone while they worked.

¶3. Hollis testified that as he worked that morning, he heard loud music playing two rooms down from the room in which he was working. He stated that he initially did not say anything to Self or Blanks about the music but instead took his morning break to avoid it. On the way out to take his break, Hollis informed Benchmark Construction superintendent Beau Flemming about the music.[1] Hollis testified that there was a policy that there should be no music at the jobsite, but Flemming stated the policy was that if anyone finds the music playing in a shared work area offensive, it must be turned off. Hollis said he asked Flemming not to say anything to Self or Blanks about the music because he did not want to cause trouble.

¶4. Self, on the other hand, testified that Hollis stopped by the room he and Blanks were working in that morning (before his break) and made several racial slurs about the rap music. Self testified that after the encounter, he turned the music off. He said that Flemming came by a short time later to tell him to turn off the music, and Self told Flemming the music was already off.

¶5. Hollis testified that after he returned from his break, Blanks moved into the same room that he was working in and had moved his work materials and tools to the middle of the room in order to continue their sprinkler installation. At this time Hollis and Blanks were the only people present in the room, so there were no additional witnesses to the impending altercation. Hollis stated that Blanks was on top of a ten-foot ladder and called down to Hollis with an apology for moving his tools. Hollis testified that he then told Blanks it was ok that the tools were moved and said he then apologized to Blanks for Flemming speaking to him earlier about playing music. According to Hollis, Blanks began to curse him and deride him for listening to country music. Hollis said that Blanks came down the ladder and "got right up in my face," so Hollis pushed him. He testified that when he pushed Blanks, Blanks had not yet touched him. He stated that next Blanks put him in a chokehold and kicked his knee out from under him, which caused him to fall. Hollis' right knee hit the floor. Hollis testified that because he felt he was about to pass out from the chokehold, he grabbed a hammer drill on the floor and tried to hit Blanks with it. According to Hollis, the fight ended when Blanks let go of him and left the room.

¶6. Blanks' testimony differs from Hollis' testimony in many respects. Blanks agrees that upon returning from his break, Hollis told him it was fine that he had moved Hollis' tools. However, according to Blanks, after Hollis said that moving the tools was fine, he proceeded to use racial slurs to ask Blanks "why we listen to that 'N' word stuff" and not country music. Blanks explained that he did not like country music and made a dig at Hollis about the genre. Blanks testified that Hollis got angry, grabbed the ten-foot ladder Blanks was working on, and said to Blanks, "I bet you won't come off the ladder and say that ...." Blanks said he descended the ladder and repeated his insult regarding country music. Hollis then shoved him, and the altercation commenced.

¶7. Blanks testified that both parties were yelling, but he had not threatened or initiated physical contact with Hollis before Hollis shoved him. Blanks denies putting Hollis in a chokehold but confirms that Hollis grabbed a hammer drill to hit him. According to Blanks, Hollis struck him in the face with the hammer drill and tried to drill his stomach. Blanks said that he wrested the hammer drill from Hollis and left the room to find Self before reporting the altercation to Flemming. Both Hollis and Blanks agree that they did not know each other outside of work and only met on the day of the altercation.

¶8. Self's deposition testimony confirmed that Blanks had a strike mark on his face, he was holding a hammer drill, and Blanks told him Hollis had tried to stab him with it. Self also recalled Blanks telling him that he had put Hollis in a headlock. Self said Blanks had told him that the altercation was about the music.

¶9. In his deposition, Flemming did not recall seeing bruises on either party's face. Flemming opined that the music and the tool movement were the cause of the altercation. Although Flemming speculated that the tool movement played a part in the altercation, Hollis, Blanks, and Self all agreed that the altercation was over the music. Again, neither Self nor Flemming actually witnessed the altercation.

¶10. Hollis testified that after the fight, his leg "[gave] way on me," and he could not walk. He required surgery and would be unable to work for five months. The injury resulted in a work restriction that significantly impacted his efficiency in installing acoustic grids in the future. Hollis had surgery in November 2019 to repair a complete tear of the medial collateral ligament, a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, and a rupture of the medial collateral ligament of his right knee. He was released from the doctor's care in May 2020.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶11. In April 2020, Hollis filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission. The employer and carrier, Associated General Contractors of Mississippi Inc., filed an answer denying that the injuries were compensable. A compensability hearing was held in December 2020, where the parties stipulated that the sole issue was whether Hollis had suffered a compensable work-related injury. In May 2021, Administrative Judge Tammy Harthcock issued an order finding that Hollis' work injury was not related to his employment because the dispute "was solely over the music.... [A]s such both Hollis and Blanks were deviating from their work duties. Therefore, the incident cannot be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, which is required for compensability." In June 2021, Hollis appealed the order to the full Commission. The Commission affirmed the order, although it specifically pointed out that the administrative judge's determination that Hollis was the aggressor was irrelevant because of the no-fault system of workers' compensation. However, the full Commission went on to state, "The Claimant in this matter willfully engaged in conduct intended to injure himself or another when he abandoned his employment to participate in [a] physical altercation. These actions are expressly exempt from recovery under the Act."

¶12. Commissioner Mark Henry dissented, expressing his concern that this reading of the statute could bar workers' compensation claims for employees who were defending themselves from another's assault. He also believed because there was a policy regarding music on the worksite supported the conclusion that the argument "stemmed from a connection to the Claimant's employment . . . [, and because of this he] would find that the Claimant sustained a compensable work-related injury[.]" In November 2021, Hollis appealed from the Commission's order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13. "This Court's review of decisions of the Workers' Compensation Commission is limited by the familiar substantial evidence standard." Sanderson Farms Inc. v. Jackson, 911 So.2d 985, 988 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Nettles v. Gulf City Fisheries Inc., 629 So.2d 554, 557 (Miss. 1993)). Applying this standard, we will reverse a decision of the Commission if the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. Id. (citing Weatherspoon v. Croft Metals Inc., 853 So.2d 776, 778 (¶6) (Miss. 2003)). "[C]onsiderable discretion is given to the agency for fact-finding, discretion that we review with considerable deference." Hawkins v. Treasure Bay Hotel &Casino, 813 So.2d 757, 759 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Whether an appellant is assaulted because of his employment is a factual issue for the Commission to determine. John Hancock Trucking Co. v. Walker, 243 Miss. 487, 495, 138 So.2d 478, 480 (1962). "Absent an error of law, we must affirm the Commission's decision if there is substantial evidence to support [it]." Forrest Gen. Hosp. v. Humphrey, 136 So.3d 468, 471 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

ANALYSIS

¶14. Hollis' sole issue on appeal is whether he sustained a compensable injury. Hollis argues that the injuries he sustained resulted from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT