Dorn v. Housing Authority of Pine Bluff
2017 Ark. App. 309
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On May 5, 2016, Leroy Dorn (maintenance worker) was struck repeatedly with a baseball bat by coworker Bruce Spicer in the employer’s parking lot while arriving for a supervisor-called meeting about a prior dispute. Dorn sustained facial fractures, elbow contusion, and tooth avulsion.
- An off-duty police officer, Chrisanthia Kendrick, witnessed the assault, intervened, and arrested Spicer for battery; both employees were later terminated for workplace violence.
- The Housing Authority controverted Dorn’s workers’ compensation claim, arguing the altercation arose from nonwork personal animus (Dorn had previously accused Spicer of stealing his supplies and allegedly brandished a knife the day before).
- An administrative law judge found Dorn’s injuries compensable and awarded medical expenses and temporary total-disability benefits (May 6–July 29, 2015). The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding Dorn an active participant in a nonemployment-related assault and not performing employment services.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether (1) Dorn’s injuries were barred by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B) (active participant / nonemployment-related hostility / deviation from duties) and (2) he was performing employment services when injured.
- The court concluded Dorn was not an active participant in the May 5 bat assault, and that he was within the time/space boundaries of employment (arriving on time to clock in and required to attend the meeting), reversed the Commission’s denial of compensability, and remanded for determination of disability benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Dorn’s injuries barred as an "active participant" in a workplace assault under § 11-9-102(4)(B)? | Dorn argued he was the victim of an unprovoked bat attack and did not actively participate in the May 5 physical assault. | Employer argued Dorn’s prior threats, alleged knife brandishing, and preexisting animus made him an active participant in the assault. | Held: Court reversed — substantial evidence did not support finding Dorn an active participant in the May 5 bat assault. |
| Was the assault the product of nonemployment-related hostility or animus? | Dorn acknowledged prior dispute but maintained the actual assault was Spicer’s unprovoked attack tied to work time/place. | Employer emphasized longstanding personal animus over stolen items as the cause, so the assault was nonemployment-related. | Held: Court found the altercation occurred within work time/place and employer interest; preexisting animus did not bar compensability once Dorn was not an active participant. |
| Did the altercation amount to a deviation from customary duties (i.e., not performing employment services)? | Dorn argued he was performing employment services — arriving to clock in and required to attend a supervisor meeting. | Employer argued Dorn was not performing employment services at the moment of the assault. | Held: Court reversed the Commission — Dorn was within time/space boundaries and performing employment services. |
| Should compensability be reversed and case remanded for benefits? | Dorn sought reversal and remand for determination of temporary total-disability benefits beyond July 29. | Employer urged affirmance of denial of compensability. | Held: Court reversed denial of compensability and remanded to Commission to determine disability benefits (did not decide benefit amount/duration). |
Key Cases Cited
- Santillan v. Tyson Sales & Distrib., 386 S.W.3d 566 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard for reversing Commission when reasonable minds could differ)
- Thompson v. Mountain Home Good Samaritan Village, 442 S.W.3d 873 (Ark. Ct. App.) (deference to Commission if reasonable minds could reach its conclusion)
- Bennett v. Tyson Poultry, Inc., 504 S.W.3d 653 (Ark. Ct. App.) (review standard: view evidence most favorably to Commission)
- Best W. Inn & Union Ins. of Providence v. Paul, 443 S.W.3d 551 (Ark. Ct. App.) (test for performing employment services mirrors course-and-scope analysis)
- Pifer v. Single Source Transportation, 69 S.W.3d 1 (Ark.) (time/space boundaries and whether employer’s interests were advanced)
- Burnett v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 101 S.W.3d 843 (Ark. Ct. App.) (uncorroborated testimony of interested witness is considered controverted)