An appeals court reversed a Workers Compensation Commission decision denying an employee’s workers compensation claims for injuries he sustained when he was stabbed at work by a former co-worker.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia in Alexandria held Monday that the Workers Compensation Commission erred in concluding that the motive of the former coworker was relevant to the question of whether the employees assault arose out of employment in King v. DTH Contract Services Inc.

The employee was assaulted by his former coworker, who afterwards committed suicide. The assailant’s motive for the stabbing was never discovered.

The employee worked as an overnight rest area attendant for DTH Contract Services Inc., based in Dunn, North Carolina, and was responsible for keeping the restrooms clean, emptying trash, and reporting any criminal activity to police during his 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. When he was not cleaning or making rounds, he was instructed to remain locked in the office.

In the early morning hours of July 13, 2016, the assailant, who had quit a year earlier, stabbed the employee in the eyes with a screwdriver when he was on his way back to the office after a safety check. The employee said he did not recognize the assailant at the time of the assault, though they had previously worked together. The employee was permanently blinded by the stabbing.

The employee sought workers compensation benefits, which were denied by a divided commission, which held that because the employee knew the assailant — and was unable to prove that the assailant’s motive was employment related rather than personal — that the attack was not random and therefore his injuries did not arise out of his employment. The employee appealed.

The employee argued that he could prove that the assault arose out of his employment — despite the unknown motive — because his employment as an overnight rest stop attendant placed him at a greater risk of assault than the general public. He argued that working alone all night, locked in an office when not doing rounds, “augmented the risk of assault,” and also presented legislation introduced in the Virginia House that outlined the large number of thefts, assaults and drug violations that occurred at the state’s highway rest stops.

The appeals court held that the commission erred holding that the assailant’s motive was all that mattered in determining whether the assault arose out of employment and refusing to consider whether the employee’s workplace generated a greater risk of assault. The court found no evidence that the assailant targeted the employee for personal reasons, and noted that other cases in the state have found that when an assailant’s motive is unknowable, a workers comp claimant does not have to affirmatively establish that the assailant’s motive is not personal.

The court found that the commission erred in concluding that because the employee and the assailant knew each other that “the assault between them could not result from an increased risk of assault.” The court held that the commission was not precluded from considering other evidence to satisfy the requirement that the injury arose from a risk of employment and erred in treating motive as the only relevant issue.

As a result, the court reversed and remanded the case to the commission.

DTH Contract Services is no longer in business and therefore could not be reached for comment.