## Facts

- Raymond W. Smith, Jr. worked for Bob Evans Farms, Inc. as an area director responsible for overseeing restaurant operations in his district.
- Bob Evans opened a new restaurant in Princeton, Indiana, and Smith was required to attend and assist with the grand opening as part of his duties.
- On the opening day, Smith arrived early, performed work-related tasks, and transported corporate representatives between the restaurant and the airport.
- Smith later returned to the restaurant and participated in a lunch provided by Bob Evans in connection with the grand-opening activities.
- Shortly after eating, Smith began choking, collapsed, and died despite attempted assistance.
- The medical examiner attributed death to asphyxiation (an asphyxial event).
- Smith’s survivors sought workers’ compensation death benefits, asserting that work-related stress and circumstances increased the risk of choking.

## Issues

1. Whether the Worker’s Compensation Board’s findings were sufficiently specific and supported by evidence to permit appellate review.
2. Whether Smith’s death occurred “in the course of” his employment.
3. Whether Smith’s death “arose out of” his employment, including whether employment increased the risk of the fatal choking.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the full Worker’s Compensation Board’s denial of benefits.
- The court held the Board’s findings were sufficiently specific and supported by substantial evidence.
- The court accepted that the death occurred “in the course of” employment because it happened during a required work function, at a work-related place, and during work-connected activity.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that the death did not “arise out of” employment because the job did not create or increase the risk of choking beyond the risk faced by the general public while eating.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence or reassess credibility, treating the “increased risk” determination as a factual finding for the Board.

## Legal Principles

- A workers’ compensation claim requires proof that an injury both occurred “in the course of” employment (time, place, and circumstances) and “arose out of” employment (causal connection); the requirements are distinct.
- Under Indiana’s increased-risk analysis, an injury arises out of employment only if employment conditions create a risk greater than that faced by the general public or otherwise increase the likelihood of the injury.
- Workplace presence or employer benefit from the employee’s activity may satisfy “in the course of,” but does not by itself establish that the injury “arose out of” employment.
- Appellate review of Board decisions is limited; courts affirm if the Board’s findings are specific enough and supported by substantial evidence of probative value.

## Conclusion

Smith’s fatal choking occurred during a required work event and thus in the course of employment, but benefits were denied because substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that his employment did not increase the risk of choking and the death therefore did not arise out of employment.


Smith v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 754 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)