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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.