Hulbert v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

Citations: 239 Ga. App. 370; 521 S.E.2d 43Docket: A99A0424

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; July 15, 1999; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alan Lee Hulbert appealed a superior court order that upheld the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against Hulbert, determining he did not prove that his injury arose out of or in the course of his employment. This decision was affirmed by the appellate division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation. However, the court found that the burden of proof imposed on Hulbert by the ALJ was excessive and that Hulbert had provided sufficient evidence to establish that his injury was work-related.

Hulbert, a Domino’s Pizza delivery driver, was injured after being doused with gasoline and set on fire while returning from a delivery. He had pulled over in response to a vehicle with flashing blue lights and approached an individual he believed to be a police officer. The incident resulted in severe burns to 50% of his body, leading to a lengthy hospital stay.

Domino’s contested the claim, proposing four scenarios for the incident, two of which could potentially qualify for compensation: an act of violence directed at the company or a random act of violence. The other two scenarios—revenge against Hulbert or self-infliction—would disqualify him from benefits. Evidence was presented linking Hulbert to past criminal behavior, suggesting possible motives for personal attack or self-harm. Expert testimony was provided on the nature of the burns and Hulbert’s mental state, with conflicting opinions on whether the burns indicated self-immolation.

Hulbert countered this with evidence of the high crime rate in Griffin, where he worked, and previous assaults on Domino’s delivery personnel elsewhere. He claimed the incident was an "unexplained accident," arguing for a presumption that it occurred in the course of his employment. The court ultimately reversed the decision, recognizing the evidence presented by Hulbert as adequate to prove his claim.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the "unexplained accident" presumption applies only in cases of employee death, and determined that Hulbert did not meet the burden of proving his accident arose from his employment, leading to a denial of compensation. This decision was upheld by both the State Board of Workers’ Compensation appellate division and the superior court. However, the current analysis finds that Hulbert did demonstrate his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making the unexplained accident presumption irrelevant for this appeal. 

In workers' compensation claims, the claimant bears the burden of proving an accidental injury linked to their employment. The ALJ accepted Hulbert’s uncontradicted testimony that he was attacked while returning from a pizza delivery, affirming it met the necessary burden. It was clarified that the employee is not required to disprove every possibility of the injury’s origins. The arguments made by Domino’s regarding Hulbert’s burden were deemed affirmative defenses, not part of the initial burden of proof.

The stipulated fact was that Hulbert’s injuries occurred while he was on duty, and the sole question was whether the injury was causally connected to his employment. The definition of "arising out of the employment" involves a causal connection between the employment conditions and the injury. The risks faced must be incidental to the employment, not independent. The analysis found that pizza delivery personnel, due to the nature of their work—traveling alone, often at night, in marked vehicles, and potentially carrying cash—are exposed to specific dangers. 

Since Hulbert was performing his job duties at the time of the attack, the circumstances were deemed to have increased his risk of harm, establishing a direct connection to his employment. Consequently, the assault was determined to arise out of Hulbert’s employment under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Following this conclusion, the burden shifted to Domino’s to prove that Hulbert’s injuries were intentionally self-inflicted.

An employer, specifically Domino’s, has the burden of proof when asserting affirmative defenses in a workers' compensation case, as established by OCGA § 34-9-17 and relevant case law. The party asserting a fact must prove its existence, while any necessary negation must also be proven by the party making the assertion. In this context, mere speculation or conjecture regarding potential causes of an employee's injuries is insufficient to shift the burden of persuasion to the employee. The court criticized Domino’s approach, which suggested that the employee, Hulbert, needed to prove he had not provoked the attack, as inconsistent with legal standards. The superior court erred in affirming a workers' compensation award that placed the burden on Hulbert to disprove unproven defenses. Evidence presented by Hulbert established that his injuries were work-related, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not find otherwise. Consequently, the judgment of the superior court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judges Blackburn and Ellington concurred.