## Facts

- Rosewell Reid worked as a painter for Odd Jobs & More and was assigned to work at Chateau Deville Apartments in Little Rock, Arkansas.
- Reid’s work required him to enter individual apartments; he had worked at the complex for years and described it as a rough area where he had seen fights.
- On June 4, 2009, while inside an apartment inspecting a water leak, Reid was struck from behind in the head by an unknown assailant.
- The assailant robbed Reid of $36 and a cell phone.
- Reid suffered severe head injuries, including loss of a portion of his skull, and claimed significant ongoing physical limitations; his wife testified she provided extensive daily assistance due to his injuries.
- Evidence presented to the Commission indicated the complex had a history of criminal activity, including prior participation in a high-crime monitoring program and numerous police reports of violent acts; the assailant had reportedly attacked another person at the complex a few days earlier.
- The employer’s owner testified the company had worked at the complex for decades and denied awareness of violence problems or increased risk to employees; the property manager testified about security measures and the complex’s past eligibility for high-crime surveillance programming.
- An Administrative Law Judge found the assault compensable and awarded benefits; the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed and adopted that decision.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Reid’s injuries from a third-party assault arose out of and in the course of employment.
2. Whether the work setting exposed Reid to an increased risk of assault sufficient to satisfy the “arising out of” requirement under Arkansas workers’ compensation law.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s award of benefits.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the risk of assault was increased by the setting of Reid’s work at the apartment complex.
- The court deferred to the Commission’s credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting testimony about the level of risk at the worksite.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of workers’ compensation decisions is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the Commission; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Commission’s decision.
- Substantial evidence is relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
- A claimant must prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; for third-party assaults, the “arising out of” element may be satisfied where employment conditions expose the employee to an increased risk compared to the general public.
- The Commission is the fact-finder responsible for weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts; appellate courts do not reweigh the proof if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s result.

## Conclusion

Because Reid was assaulted while performing assigned duties inside an apartment at a location supported by evidence of heightened criminal activity, the court upheld the Commission’s finding that the work setting increased the risk of assault and affirmed the compensability award.


Odd Jobs & More & Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Reid, 2011 Ark. App. 450 (2011)