## Facts

- Janice F. Dildy worked as a cashier at a gas station and convenience store operated by MBW Investments, Inc.
- Dildy had previously ended an abusive relationship with Vernon Farmer, who continued to harass and threaten her; she sought psychiatric treatment and obtained a restraining order.
- Dildy did not inform her employer or coworkers about Farmer or his threats.
- While Dildy was working, Farmer entered the store, paid for beer, and threw the beer at her; Dildy asked the on-duty supervisor to call the police.
- The supervisor instructed Dildy to continue working and did not call the police; Farmer later called the store and threatened her, and the supervisor again directed her to keep working.
- About 20 minutes after the initial incident, Farmer returned and shot Dildy at the counter, causing serious injuries; Farmer later pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
- Dildy sought workers’ compensation benefits; a deputy commissioner and the Full Commission denied the claim, concluding the injury did not “arise out of” employment.

## Issues

1. Whether injuries from an assault by a former intimate partner at the workplace, motivated by personal reasons, “arise out of” employment under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Whether the workplace’s role as the location where the assailant found the employee establishes the required causal connection to employment.
3. Whether a supervisor’s refusal to call police and instruction to continue working can convert a personal-risk assault into a compensable work-related injury.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission’s denial of benefits.
- The court accepted that the shooting occurred “in the course of” employment (during work hours, at the workplace, while performing duties).
- The court held the injury did not “arise out of” employment because the assault was driven by personal animosity from a domestic relationship and the job did not increase the risk of that assault.
- The court rejected the argument that the supervisor’s inaction changed the origin of the risk from personal to employment-related.
- The court applied deferential review to the Commission’s supported factual findings and upheld the Commission’s legal conclusion of noncompensability.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable workers’ compensation claim requires an injury “by accident arising out of and in the course of” employment.
- “In the course of” focuses on time, place, and circumstances of the injury; “arising out of” requires a causal connection between employment conditions and the injury.
- An assault motivated by purely personal reasons generally does not “arise out of” employment unless the employment increased the risk of the assault or contributed to the animosity.
- The fact that employment provides a predictable location where an assailant can find the employee does not, by itself, establish the required causal connection.
- Appellate review of Industrial Commission decisions treats supported findings of fact as binding and asks whether those findings support the Commission’s legal conclusions.

## Conclusion

The court held that a workplace shooting by a former boyfriend was not compensable because the assault stemmed from personal domestic conflict and the employment did not create or increase the risk; the workplace was only the setting where the assailant carried out a personal attack.


Dildy v. MBW Invs., Inc., 152 N.C. App. 65, 566 S.E.2d 759 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)