## Facts

- Kathy Kendrick worked as a receptionist for Peel, Eddy & Gibbons Law Firm in Russellville, Arkansas.
- On December 28, 1987, while Kendrick was at her reception desk performing her job duties, Ronald Gene Simmons entered the office and shot and killed her.
- The law firm presented testimony that it could find no connection between Simmons and the firm, its members, clients, or legal matters, and no evidence of any grievance by Simmons against the firm.
- Kendrick previously worked at Woodline Motor Freight, where she had known Simmons; a former coworker testified that Kendrick said Simmons repeatedly asked her out and she repeatedly refused.
- On the same day, Simmons killed multiple family members and then shot other persons at additional locations, including a former workplace and Woodline Motor Freight.
- A former coworker testified that Simmons later stated he had “gotten everybody who hurt him,” and he held her at gunpoint until police arrived.
- Kendrick’s minor son sought workers’ compensation death benefits, asserting the death arose out of and in the course of employment and arguing the positional-risk doctrine applied because employment placed Kendrick at the site of the shooting.
- The Workers’ Compensation Commission denied benefits, finding the killing was motivated by Simmons’s personal vendetta and lacked a causal connection to Kendrick’s employment; it also admitted and considered the challenged testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Kendrick’s death arose out of and in the course of employment, including whether the positional-risk doctrine made the death compensable despite evidence of a personal motive.
2. Whether the Commission committed reversible error by admitting and relying on alleged hearsay testimony concerning Simmons’s prior conduct and statements.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s denial of death benefits.
- The court agreed that the “in the course of” element was satisfied because the killing occurred at work during Kendrick’s duties, but the “arising out of” element was not.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Simmons acted from personal animus toward persons he believed had wronged him, including Kendrick, rather than from any employment-related dispute with the law firm.
- The positional-risk doctrine did not apply because the employment merely provided the setting for a personal-motive assault and did not supply the required causal connection.
- Any evidentiary error in admitting hearsay did not warrant reversal, given the Commission’s latitude on evidence and the presence of substantial supporting evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable workers’ compensation injury must occur in the course of employment and arise out of employment; the latter requires a causal connection between the employment and the injury.
- Assaults driven by personal animus or vendetta generally do not “arise out of” employment even when they occur at the workplace.
- The positional-risk doctrine does not convert a personal-motive assault into a compensable claim merely because employment placed the employee at the place and time of injury.
- Workers’ compensation proceedings are not bound by strict rules of evidence; appellate review focuses on whether the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether any evidentiary error was prejudicial.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of death benefits because substantial evidence showed the killing was motivated by Simmons’s personal vendetta, not by Kendrick’s employment, and the positional-risk doctrine did not supply the missing causal link; the evidentiary challenge did not justify reversal.


Kendrick v. Peel, Eddy & Gibbons Law Firm, 795 S.W.2d 365 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990)