Workers With Guns: Firearms and Workers' Compensation

Sarasota, FL (CompNewsNetwork) - Guns are tools. A gun can be used as an instrument for defense or as weapon of destruction. Guns should only be carried for the purpose they were intended, to protect persons or property. They only become dangerous when applied for the wrong ends. This article is not about gun control. It is about people who use guns because their job requires them to. It is also about people who have filed worker' compensation claims resulting from circumstances involving the use or misuse of firearms.

We ran a thorough search through our legal archives at WorkCompResearch.com and tracked down some very disarming court opinions involving guns. We hope they will illustrate how important it is to handle firearms wisely and responsibly, and how improper use can impact both worker and employer.

Loree Zach v. Nebraska State Patrol, 14 Neb. App. 579, (2006).

In this case, it was alleged that Mark Zach, who had been a trooper with the Nebraska State Patrol, was killed as a result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in an accident, or as a result of an occupational disease, arising out of and in the scope and course of his employment. Two weeks prior to Zach's death, he stopped multiple suspects in Norfolk, Nebraska. In the course of investigating the activities of the suspects Zach found one of them to be armed with a pistol. Zach communicated the serial numbers from the handgun to a dispatcher. There was a miscommunication in the exchange between Zach and the dispatcher, which resulted in the failure to identify the handgun as stolen, and Zach let the suspects go free. These suspects were later among those participants in a bank robbery during which several persons were murdered. Upon being advised of the circumstances, Zach felt responsible for the murders in the "Norfolk bank robbery", became very distraught, and eventually committed suicide. His estate claimed that he suffered an "accident" resulting in a "personal injury" inasmuch as the sudden stimulus (i.e., being advised of the consequences of an error) caused Zach's brain to undergo physical changes which, in turn, led Zach to a state of mind which overrode his will, to the extent that even knowledge of the consequences of the act of suicide did not prevent Zach from taking his own life. The court initially ruled that if Zach's brain did undergo "physical changes" the changes must be proceeded by violence to the physical structure of the body. As a matter of law, the mere talking or being informed of a problem does not rise to the level of violence to the physical structure of the body. The appellate court reversed the decision and remanded for further inquiry to determine whether there were "sufficient physical changes in the brain's chemistry" to constitute "violence to the physical structure of the body" to allow for a compensable injury.

Illinois Dept. of Corrections v. Claudia Green, No. 3--97--1007, (1998).

The Illinois Department of Corrections discharged Claudia Green after determining that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her position as correctional sergeant due to a shoulder injury and that there was no accommodation available for her. The ability to use a shotgun was an essential function of the correctional sergeant position. Green could perform every duty of a correctional sergeant, except for firing a shotgun while resting the butt against her right shoulder. The DOC did not make any effort to retrain Green to fire a weapon against her left shoulder which would have resolved the issue. The decision to discharge Green was based, in part, upon the subject administrative directives. Green established a prima facie case of handicap discrimination and that the DOC failed to take sufficient steps to accommodate Green's handicap.

Matter of Stepcic v. ADV Construction, NY Slip Op 09679, (2006).

Stepcic was employed as a laborer to follow behind an asphalt-ripping machine, pick up pieces of asphalt and place them on the side of the road for subsequent removal. During work, Stepcic noticed a dumpster containing construction debris from an unrelated work site. He removed what initially appeared to be a piece of steel but was actually a shotgun from a box on top of the dumpster and showed it to a coworker. The shotgun then discharged, fatally wounding him. After a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Stepcic had suffered a work-related injury resulting in death. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that his death did not occur in the course of employment. Bruna Stepcis, the widow, appealed the decison. At the hearing, testimony established that the dumpster and its contents were not used in the course of decedent's employment in any way. Testimony also indicated that workers were not in the habit of looking into the dumpster and that no work-related reason existed to do so. The court concluded that the record contained substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that decedent's actions in handling the discarded firearm were unreasonable and completely unrelated to decedent's employment.

Thomas Galaida v. Autozone, 1D03-2097, (2004).

While Galaida was working at an auto parts store, he walked outside to his car which was parked in the store parking lot for the purpose of obtaining a cigarette. As he opened the car door, a loaded firearm fell to the ground and discharged. Galaida was shot in the leg. While he originally claimed he was the victim of a drive-by shooting, Galaida later admitted he was wounded by his own weapon. It is undisputed that Galaida's employer maintains a policy against possession of firearms on the store premises. The JCC found that this store policy was violated by Galaida, and, thus, he substantially deviated from work activities such that he was not entitled to worker's compensation benefits. On appeal, Galaida argues that, because store employees were permitted to take a smoking break, his visit to the car to obtain a cigarette cannot be deemed a deviation from employment. Instead, Galaida argues, his injury must be deemed compensable under the personal comfort doctrine, which provides that an employee administering to his personal comfort does not leave the course of employment, unless the extent of the departure is great or that the method chosen to attend to that comfort is unusual and unreasonable. Although the accidental injury occurred during his break and his car was on company property, his claim was disqualified for that very reason. The gun, by logical extension, was considered to be on the store's premises and was in violation of company policy.

If you are thinking of bringing a gun to work, for whatever reason, even if it is kept in your vehicle and is outside, you may be disqualifying yourself from workers' compensation benefits should an accident or injury occur from the use or misuse of the firearm. Remember, guns should be handled by people who have the proper training and a license to have one. Whether it is a part of your job to carry one or something you need to protect yourself, always practice gun safety rules and know your company's policy. You can avoid a lot of trouble if you just use common sense.