Mohammed Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance Company, et al., SC2023-1576

Background

Mohammed Bouayad was shot at close range by an unknown assailant while walking from his employer's hotel atrium kiosk to an outside office at midnight. 1
A JCC awarded workers' compensation benefits, relying in part on Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria. 2
The First District reversed, holding the shooting did not arise out of work performed and was therefore non-compensable. 3
Bouayad introduced evidence that his job duties, late hours, cash handling, and work environment increased his risk of assault. 4
Normandy countered that the attack was targeted, non-robbery violence and that Bouayad was not at increased risk at work. 5
The JCC found the employment substantially contributed to the risk and that the attack was more likely tied to job-related issues than personal reasons. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of 'arising out of work performed' 7	Bouayad said it means work-relatedness, not direct task causation.	Normandy agreed, but said Bouayad lacked proof of work-relatedness.	The phrase requires a work-related nexus, not task-specific causation. 8
Whether third-party assault injuries are compensable 9	Bouayad argued workplace assaults are covered when employment relates to the assault.	Normandy argued a targeted shooting by a third party was noncompensable.	Yes, if the claimant proves work-relatedness under the correct standard. 10
Whether increased-risk evidence can establish occupational causation 11	Bouayad contended his job duties and environment increased his risk of attack.	Normandy said only a work-related motive could satisfy causation.	Yes, increased-risk evidence can independently satisfy occupational causation. 12
Whether the First District used the wrong causation standard 13	Bouayad argued the court wrongly required his walking to directly cause the shooting.	Normandy said the JCC's work-relatedness findings lacked substantial evidence.	The First District erroneously imported tort causation and ignored risk exposure evidence. 14
Disposition 15	Bouayad sought reinstatement of the benefits award.	Normandy sought affirmance of the reversal.	The Court quashed and remanded for review under the correct legal standard. 16

Key Cases Cited

Strother v. Morrison Cafeteria, 383 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1980) (workplace assault and robbery can satisfy arising-out-of requirement 17)
Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 888 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2004) (right to benefits depends on a work-connected injury 18)
Silberberg v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 335 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (workers' compensation looks to the link between work and injury through relative risk 19)
Blish v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 736 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1999) (arising out of means broader than proximate cause; requires a nexus 20)
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Novak, 453 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1984) (arising out of in PIP law means some nexus, not proximate cause 21)
Parks v. State, 411 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2025) (related statutes should be read together as a harmonious whole 22)
Tsuji v. Fleet, 366 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2023) (related statutory provisions should be harmonized 23)
Sentry Ins. Co. v. Hamlin, 69 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (work-relatedness means a risk incidental to work caused or contributed to the injury 24)
Lovin Mood, Inc. v. Bush, 687 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (isolated workplace rape was compensable based on increased risk 25)
Jenkins v. Wilson, 397 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (unknown-motive abduction and rape was compensable because employment created the hazard 26)
Santizo-Perez v. Genaro's Corp., 138 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (dangerous environment can satisfy causal link without proof of motive 27)
San Marco Co. v. Langford, 391 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (purely personal animosity assaults are not compensable 28)