ILNews

Worker's suicide fails chain of causation test

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A widow's request for workers' compensation benefits of her deceased husband can't be granted because his death at work was caused by a knowingly self-inflicted injury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The woman failed to satisfy the chain of causation test in trying to prove an initial work-related event led to her husband's death.

In Boyd Vandenberg, deceased v. Snedegar Construction, Inc., No. 93A02-0904-EX-312, Jane Vandenberg appealed the order of the Full Worker's Compensation Board affirming the single hearing officer's decision to deny her claim for Boyd Vandenberg's worker's compensation benefits.

Boyd had been at a company party in December, had a few alcoholic drinks, and then got behind the wheel of a company car. He hit another company vehicle, got out, and shot himself in the head in front of Snedegar Construction President Gary Snedegar. Boyd had previously contemplated suicide, suffered from depression, and was a perfectionist.

The single hearing member ruled the evidence showed Boyd knowingly inflicted his injury and his suicide doesn't fall under the narrow exception created by the Court of Appeals to the general bar of compensation when death is caused by a self-inflicted injury.

On review, the appellate court noted Indiana courts have had few opportunities to address whether workers' compensation benefits are barred when the employee commits suicide. It found Indiana State Police v. Wiessing, 836 N.E.2d 1038, to be instructive. Wiessing was a police officer who accidentally killed a motorist during a routine traffic stop. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result and killed himself six years later. The full board granted his descendants an application for an adjustment of claim.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals used the chain of causation test described in Wiessing to determine that the evidence doesn't show Boyd's accident at the company party led to his suicide. The test requires an initially work-related injury defined by the Worker's Compensation Act; that injury directly caused the employee to become dominated by a disturbance of the mind with such severity as to override normal rational judgment; and that disturbance results in the employee's suicide.

Jane argued that Boyd suffered a mental injury of severe, acute depression as a result the company accident and that the company provided no evidence to explain Boyd's change in demeanor immediately following the wreck other than the accident itself.

"However, a change in demeanor is not equivalent to a mental injury," wrote Judge Terry Crone. "We cannot equate post-traumatic stress disorder with Boyd's distress, albeit extreme, following the truck accident. Also, we observe that although the evidence shows that Boyd suffered from depression in the past and may have been suffering from depression at the time of the truck accident and had obsessive-compulsive tendencies, there is no indication that his depression or obsessive-compulsive tendencies were caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment."

Without an initial work-related injury, the chain of causation test isn't satisfied. The evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from them support the board's decision that the company carried its burden to prove Boyd's death was caused by his knowingly self-inflicted injury, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT