Velasquez v. Industrial Commission, 77-1078
| Citation | 41 Colo.App. 201,581 P.2d 748 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1078,77-1078 |
| Parties | Martin D. VELASQUEZ and James F. Sanchez, Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Colorado, Juereta P. Smith, Director of Division of Labor and Employment, State Compensation Insurance Fund and City and County of Denver, Respondents. . II |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Pepper & Rubin, P. C., Eugene M. Pepper P. C., Denver, for petitioners.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Timothy R. Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
William J. Baum, Denver, for respondents State Compensation Ins. Fund and City and County of Denver.
Petitioners seek review of a final order of the Industrial Commission denying their respective claims for workmen's compensation benefits. We affirm.
The determinative issue presented for review is whether the Commission erred in concluding that petitioners' injuries did not arise out of their employment with the respondent City and County of Denver.
The record discloses that petitioners were both shot by a co-employee while they were at work. The co-employee believed that petitioners were responsible for making a number of obscene telephone calls to his wife, and the Commission expressly found that: "The record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the motivation for the assault was in any way related to the employment . . .." Since this finding is supported by the record, it will not be disturbed upon appellate review. Archer Freight Lines, Inc. v. Horn Transportation, Inc., 32 Colo.App. 412, 514 P.2d 330 (1973).
In Kitchens v. Department of Labor and Employment, 29 Colo.App. 374, 486 P.2d 474 (1971), this court analyzed the rule applicable to workmen's compensation cases involving injury from risks not common to a particular type of employment as follows:
"In Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 81 Colo. 233, 254 P. 995, our Supreme Court made a full statement of the rule that in cases involving injuries of an origin not common to a particular type of employment, if an employee's work positions him where he was when injured, and if it is demonstrated that his injury would not have occurred but for that fact, the required causal connection between the employment and the injury has been established." (Emphasis in original.)
In the present case, although petitioners were injured on the premises of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Question Submitted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, In re, 87SA127
...201, 203, 581 P.2d 748, 749 (1978) (quoting 1 Larson § 11.21). Such assaults do " 'not arise out of the employment under any test.' " 9 Id. The third category of neutral assaults includes "assaults which are in essence equivalent to blind or irrational forces, such as attacks by lunatics, d......
-
Jennifer v. Dept. of Corrections
...when struck by fellow employee because of disagreement arising over a personal bet.) See also Velasquez v. Industrial Commission, 41 Colo.App. 201, 203, 581 P.2d 748 (Colo.Ct.App.1978) (Employee's injuries from assault by co-employee did not "arise of out employment" "when the animosity or ......
-
Fry v. Airline Pilots Ass'n, Intern., s. 94-1509
...for injuries sustained by "specific targets." The cases they rely on, however, are inapposite. See, e.g., Velasquez v. Industrial Comm'n, 41 Colo.App. 201, 581 P.2d 748 (1978) (denying compensation based upon the fact that the assault originated from the private life of an employee and the ......
-
City of Brighton & Cirsa v. Rodriguez
...an assault at work arising solely from an employee's private, and not professional, life. See, e.g., Velasquez v. Indus. Comm'n, 41 Colo.App. 201, 202–03, 581 P.2d 748, 749 (1978) (holding that employees who were shot by a co-worker at work did not suffer injuries “arising out of” employmen......