Bar Bouncer Had Willful Intent to Injure?
As I've written about in other posts, workers' compensation issues can sometimes crop up in other types of cases - even criminal cases. That's what happened here.
It all started with a good old-fashioned bar fight down at the Stuart Ale House. Fitzpatrick, the Ale House's bouncer, was injured when he asked bar patrons Deren and Stewart to leave the premises. An altercation ensued in which Fitzpatrick was injured and following which Deren was charged with and convicted of felony battery and disorderly conduct. Because Fitzpatrick's injuries were incurred in the course of his employment, he received workers' compensation benefits from Stuart Ale House and its workers' compensation carrier, Hartford.
During the course of Deren's criminal proceedings, the prosecution came into possession of a letter from Hartford documenting that it had paid over $20,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages as a result of Fitzpatrick's injuries. They did not, however, disclose the existence of that letter to Deren. Deren argued on appeal from his conviction that their failure to do so amounted to a violation of the rule in Brady v. Maryland - the U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence in its possession. Why was this letter exculpatory? Because, according to Deren, the fact that Fitzpatrick received workers' compensation benefits showed that he had a financial motive to paint Deren as the aggressor in the altercation rather than himself. Deren reasoned that if Fitzpatrick were found to be the aggressor in the fight, he would have been ineligible to receive workers' compensation benefits pursuant to s.440.09(3), Fla. Stat., which bars an award workers' compensation benefits to anyone whose injuries result from "the willful intention of the employee to injure himself, herself, or another."
I don't know that I really agree with Deren's premise here. If Fitzpatrick was employed as a bouncer - and therefore presumably getting paid to maintain order in the bar and to toss out custormers on their ears, if necessary - I question whether the employer could have argued that his injuries were barred by s.440.09(3). I think this very well might be like West Florida Distributors v. Laramie, 438 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the case where the First DCA refused to allow an "intoxication" defense because the employer there had actually encouraged the claimant to drink with its customers while he was on the job.
By the way, the Fourth DCA didn't buy Deren's argument. The Court concluded that he could have learned from other sources about the fact that Fitzpatrick had received workers' compensation benefits - thus no "Brady" violation occurred.
