Gingras v. Liberty Bank
381 S.W.3d 112
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gingras, a Liberty Bank teller, injured her left wrist escaping a masked assailant after leaving work on April 9, 2007.
- The assailant did not convey a motive or request bank access, and no direct evidence tied the attack to rob Liberty Bank.
- A mask with Huddleston’s DNA and a gun matching a Texas crime description were found near Gingras’s home, suggesting circumstantial ties to a bank robbery motive.
- Detective Williams suspected Huddleston based on Texas crime connections and prepared an unsigned Case Summary/Warrant Request.
- The ALJ and then the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission concluded Gingras’s injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment; Gingras appealed, and the panel affirmed after de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did substantial evidence support that the injury did not arise out of employment? | Gingras argues the Texas-linked evidence shows a bank-robbery motive. | Liberty Bank contests that motive is proven and that no direct link to employment exists. | Yes; substantial evidence supports lack of arising-out connection. |
| Did substantial evidence support that the injury occurred not in the course of employment? | Gingras contends the attack occurred while performing employment duties (carrying a bank key, vault access). | Liberty Bank argues the injury occurred outside the time/space boundaries of employment. | Yes; substantial evidence supports the injury not being within time/space boundaries of employment. |
| May circumstantial evidence and lack of direct evidence establish compensability? | Gingras relies on circumstantial links (mask DNA, gun description, Texas crime similarity) to show motive. | Defendant argues such circumstantial evidence does not establish a bank robbery motive for the attack. | No; circumstantial evidence does not override the Commission’s finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swaim v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 91 Ark.App. 120 (2005) (arising-out and in-the-course requirements analyzed by standards of substantial evidence)
- Texarkana Sch. Dist. v. Conner, 373 Ark. 372 (2008) (test for time and space boundaries of employment)
- Jones v. City of Imboden, 39 Ark.App. 19 (1992) (pre-1993 Act case on employment-related attack)
- CV's Family Foods v. Caverly, 2009 Ark. App. 114 (2009) (off-duty injury while performing employment-related safety duties upheld)
- Pulaski County Special School Dist. v. Stewart, 2010 Ark. App. 487 (2010) (authority for appellate review of employment boundaries)