Rap v. country music debate ends in blows, but no workers' comp
According to the court, a qualifying compensable injury had to arise from more than an employee’s mere presence at the workplace.
A Mississippi Appeals Court has ruled that an employee injured in a debate over music preferences with co-workers did not suffer a compensable injury for workers’ compensation purposes.
Jonathan Hollis was installing an acoustics grid in a prison. Two employees, Blanks and Self, were installing a sprinkler system in a nearby part of the prison; they were listening to Christian rap music as they worked. A workplace policy required that, should any employee find music being played offensive, the music must be turned off. Hollis did not enjoy the music and asked that it be turned off. The music was eventually turned off; though the parties agreed that the fight was over music, they each told different stories about the events leading to the fight.
The stories agree, however, on the following: Blanks had to move Hollis’ tools in order to set up a ladder to reach the sprinkler system; Blanks apologized for moving the tools, which Hollis said was OK. Hollis and Blanks were alone in the room where Hollis had been working. Blanks was on the ladder when Hollis made a comment about Christian rap music and how he preferred country. Blanks made a derogatory comment about country music, then came down the ladder and got into a physical altercation with Hollis. During the fight, Hollis landed hard on his right knee, causing injury. He required knee surgery for multiple ligament tears and ruptures, leaving him unable to work for five months.
Hollis’s petition for workers’ compensation benefits was denied because the injury was not related to the work. Hollis claimed the argument, though it centered on musical preferences, had been integral to the work he was performing on the day of the fight. He appealed the ruling that he had not suffered a compensable injury, but the ruling was affirmed by an administrative judge; Hollis appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The commission likewise found Hollis’s injury was not compensable, stating that Hollis had “willfully engaged in conduct intended to injure himself or another when he abandoned his employment to participate in [a] physical altercation.” Hollis appealed the commission’s decision.
The only issue before the Court of Appeals of Mississippi was whether or not Hollis had suffered a qualifying injury for workers’ compensation benefits. According to the court, a qualifying compensable injury had to arise from more than an employee’s mere presence at the workplace. In order to be a compensable injury under the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Code, a third-party attack had to be “directed against an employee because of his employment while so employed and working on the job.”
Hollis and Blanks had already agreed that the fight had started over perceived barbs against one another’s taste in music, not moving the tools or another matter related to their work. Given these admissions, Hollis was not injured “because of his employment.” The court ruled that his injuries were therefore not within the purview of workers’ compensation benefits.
Insurance Coverage Law Center editor’s note: Workers’ compensation, like other aspects of the insurance sphere, is a matter of state law. While many state courts would issue a ruling similar to the conclusion reached here, others might decide that “but for” Hollis’ job installing acoustic grids, he would not have been present at the prison that day and therefore not been injured. The details of the job at hand, the person’s duties while performing that job, the environment, and other issues all factor into the decision of whether an injury sustained is covered by workers’ compensation or not.
Related: