Client: Next Mile LLC
Court: Workers’ Compensation
Trial Attorney: Ashley T. Mollenthiel Fiore, Esq.
Brief Attorney: Brian P. Berkoff, Esq.
**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**
In Claim Petition No. 2020-31237, the petitioner while sitting on the rear bumper of his truck, was shot by a gun and had sustained orthopedic and neurological injuries. Respondent filed an Answer asserting a general denial to the allegation of the claim petition and putting the petitioner to his proofs on all issues.
The basis for respondent’s denial was that this shooting did not arise out of the petitioner’s employment. Rather, it was respondent’s position that petitioner was personally targeted and shot for reasons unrelated to his employment and that it was as likely the shooting could have occurred during everyday life. To address the issue of compensability, Judge Thuring commenced bifurcated trial to determine whether or not the alleged incident arose out of and in the course of the petitioner’s employment for respondent, Next Mile.
After a grueling cross-examination of the petitioner, the respondent was able to prove to the Court that the facts did not contain any evidence whatsoever causally relating the shooting to the Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent. Petitioner testified that he had no issues with an alleged former co-worker while they were both working for Respondent, yet a few minutes prior to the alleged shooting, he conceded that he got in an argument with the former co-worker regarding the purchase of seemingly illegal credit cards. Furthermore, the respondent successfully argued that the shooting appeared to have been a targeted act and was just as likely to have occurred outside the workplace.
The Judge of Compensation found that it was more likely than not that the shooting was related to the credit card purchase from petitioner’s former co-worker. Even if the shooting was unrelated to this card purchase scheme, the record was still void of any evidence connecting the incident to the Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent. Accordingly, the Judge of Compensation found that the injury did not arise out of the Petitioner’s employment with Respondent and is therefore not compensable. An Order for Dismissal with prejudice was entered due to lack of compensability.
