A worker who was gored by a bull on the job and later attempted suicide when reimbursement was cut off for his antidepressants cannot pursue negligence claims against his employer’s workers compensation insurer.

In Graef v. Continental Indemnity Co., the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on Thursday held that workers compensation was the worker’s exclusive remedy to recover for his self-inflicted gunshot injury.

Francis Graef filed a complaint against Continental Indemnity Co., his employer’s workers compensation insurer, alleging that his self-inflicted gunshot wound was a result of the insurer’s negligence since it declined to pay for a refill of his antidepressant medication he was prescribed following a workplace injury.

In November 2012, Mr. Graef was working in the livestock yard of his employer, Equity Livestock, when he was gored by a bull. He suffered from physical injuries and depression as a result of the incident, and was prescribed the antidepressant duloxetine to treat his depression.

Continental paid for the first 30 days of prescription, but denied Mr. Graef’s request for payment for a refill the next month. About six weeks later, Mr. Graef attempted suicide and sustained a gunshot wound.

He argued that Continental’s refusal to pay for his antidepressant was negligent and that he attempted suicide as a result of that negligence. Continental moved for summary judgment on the basis that the workers compensation act was the exclusive remedy for his workplace injuries.

A circuit court held that the exclusive remedy provision did not bar his claims and an appellate court reversed the decision, holding that Mr. Graef could only recover for his injuries by filing a workers comp claim. Mr. Graef appealed.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court decision. The court held that Mr. Graef’s self-inflicted gunshot wound “grew out of and was incidental to his original workplace injury” and that, therefore, workers compensation was his exclusive remedy.  

Although he argued that Continental was “trying to have it both ways” since the insurer refused to concede whether Mr. Graef’s workers comp claim for the gunshot wound would succeed — an issue that led to the circuit court’s decision — the court found that the circuit court’s “prerequisite to the exclusive-remedy provision” was improper. The court remanded the decision with directions to grant summary judgment to Continental on Mr. Graef’s claim.

Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley dissented from the majority, holding that the court was too hasty in its decision to dismiss his claim without establishing whether he had a right to assert a claim outside of Wisconsin workers comp law.