This case has been remanded to us by our Supreme Court for consideration as on leave granted.
The only issue is whether plaintiffs injury arose out of and in the course of employment so that she is entitled to compensation. MCL 418.301(1); MSA 17.237(301X1).
Plaintiff was paralyzed by a gunshot wound to the neck which was inflicted by a coemployee, Linda Hill. Both plaintiff and Hill worked as dancers at Bruce’s Cocktail Lounge. Hill worked the day shift. Plaintiff worked at night. On the day of the shooting, Hill left the bar and returned when plaintiff was working.
Hill shot plaintiff as she walked out of the ladies room. Conflicting testimony was presented regarding the circumstances surrоunding the shooting. Hill was described as a dangerous drug dealer who carried a gun. She was killed before she could testify. The shoоting might have resulted from plaintiff’s and Hill’s argument over a dance costume.
The wcab stated:
*314 I would find as fact that plaintiff’s injuries are the result of а personal dispute between the two women. Although technically the women were co-employees, they workеd different shifts. There is no evidence that the short period of overlap between the two shifts gave rise to any communiсation between the two, either positive or negative. The evidence is clear that the women knew each other before they commenced employment with defendant. It is not clear who initiated the conversation or what was discussed. There is no evidence that the incident and resulting injury are related to the employment. Even assuming, as plaintiff testifiеd at trial, that the conversation pertained to purchase of a dance costume this would not be sufficient to establish a relationship to plaintiff’s employment. Defendant did not provide costumes or make allowance for рurchase of same. This was a purely personal pursuit. Brady v Clark Equipment Co,72 Mich App 274 [249 NW2d 388 (1976)], reversed by the Supreme Court400 Mich 806 [1977], which reinstated the Appeal Board decision, 1976 WCABO 524.
I also reject the argument of the positional risk doctrine. Whetro v Awkerman,383 Mich 235 [174 NW2d 783 ] (1970). Although there was testimony of problems between employees and patrons on an occasional basis, I cannot extend this to an assault by one employee on another, especially where plaintiff expressly removed herself from the "work place” to continue a personal conversation with someone she did not get along with, per review of the record.
Our review of a wcab decision is limited. The wcab’s findings of fact are conclusive and may not be set aside if supported by record evidence, absent a showing of fraud. However, the wcab’s decision may be reversed if it oрerated within the wrong legal framework or where its decision is based on erroneous legal reasoning.
Coleman v General Mo
*315
tors Corp,
A claimant must estаblish, by a preponderance of the evidence, both a personal injury and a relationship between the injury and thе workplace.
Miklik v Michigan Special Machine Co,
The requirement that there be a causal connection between the work, or the incidents thereof, the working conditions, and the injury, serves to exclude the purely personal, nonwork connected, disputes, such as that which arose аfter one Harry Elrod attempted to "date” the wife of a fellow workman whom he had met in a tavern the night preceding the altercation. Elrod v Union Bleachery, 204 SC 481 (30 SE2d 73 ) [1944]. Excluded, also, under the terms of the statute are acts of such gross and reprehensible nature as to constitute intentional and wilful misconduct. [Crilly v Ballou,353 Mich 303 , 326-327;91 NW2d 493 (1958).]
To illustrate the intentional and wilful misconduct exclusion, the
Crilly
Court cited
Federal Underwriters Exchange v Samuel,
138 Tex 444;
In
Brady v Clark Equipment Co,
72 Mich App
*316
274;
Rеcord evidence supports the wcab’s finding that plaintiff’s injuries arose from a personal dispute and were not related to plaintiff’s employment. We will not set aside that finding.
Plaintiff advances a positional-risk argument that, as a dancer in а cocktail lounge, she was exposed to an increased risk of assault from lawless and irresponsible members of the public. The wcab rejected this argument. In Devault, supra, this Court affirmed the wcab’s denial of benefits to a plaintiff who was injured in an assault by a coemployee. The Devault Court stated:
Further, we agree with the board’s rejection of plaintiff’s positional-risk theory under Whetro v Awkerman,383 Mich 235 ;174 NW2d 783 (1970). Plaintiff’s reliаnce on the positional-risk theory is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine. The doctrine applies only to neutrаl risks, or those risks which arise neither from an employment situation nor from the acts of an employee. A classic example of a neutral risk is being struck by lightning while on the job. Plaintiff here was not injured by a neutral risk, but by an intentional act of a co-emрloyee, motivated by private reasons:
"When it is clear that the origin of the assault *317 was purely private and personal, and that the employment contributed nothing to the episode, whether by engendering or exacerbating the quarrel or facilitating the assault, the assault should be held noncompensable even in states fully accepting the positional-risk test, since that test applies only whеn the risk is 'neutral.’ ” 1 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Assaults, § 11.21, p 3-256. [149 Mich App 772 .]
As in Devault, plaintiff here was not injured by a neutral risk, büt by an intentional act of a coemployee, motivated by private reásons.
Affirmed.