Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 1 of 14

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Robert W. Rock

Gerling Law Offices, P.C.

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Doris L. Sweetin

Allen & Newman, PLLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John C. Morris,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Custom Kitchen & Baths,

Appellee-Defendant.

December 7, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

93A02-1601-EX-179

Appeal from the Indiana Worker’s 

Compensation Board

The Honorable Linda Peterson 

Hamilton, Chairman

Application No.

C-219200

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 2 of 14

Case Summary and Issue

[1] John Morris is a licensed building contractor in Vanderburgh County, Indiana, 

and the sole proprietor of Custom Kitchen & Baths (“CKB”). Morris often uses 

his contractor’s license, skills, tools, and vehicle in volunteer community 

projects, particularly with the Boy Scouts of America, in which his son is a 

participant. In August 2012, Morris suffered an injury while constructing a 10’ 

x 10’ garden storage shed (“Olivet Project”) for Olivet Presbyterian Church 

(“Church”) in Evansville, Indiana. The Olivet Project was constructed as a 

volunteer Boy Scout project and Morris was not compensated for its 

construction. Following his injury, Morris filed claims with CKB’s worker’s 

compensation carrier, the Church’s insurance company, and the liability carrier 

for the Boy Scouts, all of whom paid money to or on behalf of Morris. In 2013, 

Morris filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim with the Indiana Worker’s 

Compensation Board (“Board”), which a Single Hearing Member denied. 

Morris then appealed to the full Board, which affirmed the Single Member’s 

decision. Morris appeals from the Board’s denial of his Application for 

Adjustment of Claim, raising one issue for review: whether his injury arose out 

of and in the course of his employment. CKB cross-appeals, seeking 

reimbursement of monies paid to or on behalf of Morris. Concluding Morris’ 

injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and is therefore 

covered by Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act, we reverse the decision of 

the Board and remand for a determination of disability benefits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 3 of 14

Facts and Procedural History1

[2] In 2011, Morris obtained his general contractor’s license and formed his sole 

proprietorship, CKB. Through his business, Morris designs and renovates 

kitchens and baths from start to finish. Prior to 2011, Morris owned a business 

called Envision Designs and sold cabinets and countertops.

[3] As a licensed contractor, Morris often performs volunteer community service 

projects involving carpentry or construction, for which he is not compensated, 

either through his church or the Boy Scouts. Morris’ son, Brad, was a Boy 

Scout and Morris was an Assistant Scout Manager. Morris testified that since 

2003, he has performed thirteen Boy Scouts’ community service projects in 

Vanderburgh County and Warrick County; through these community service 

projects, he donates the building materials as well as his skills, tools, 

contractor’s license, and vehicle. While it was not his “primary concern for 

doing the [community service] projects,” Morris stated he receives a substantial 

amount of business and goodwill from these projects. Transcript at 45. He 

testified,

[I]t was a matter of working with other scout families and

working with friends of scout families and by doing that I 

obtained a lot of business . . . . [B]ut just in the general course of 

the project you meet a lot of parents and they [ask] what do you 

do and, of course, some of them know and some of them don’t. 

 

1 We held oral argument in this case on November 3, 2016, in Indianapolis, Indiana. We commend counsel 

for their excellent arguments.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 4 of 14

And they engage me and [say] hey can you come by and look at 

this project for me and I just—a lot of what do you call it—

networking . . . .

Tr. at 44-45. At the Single Member Hearing, Morris produced three witnesses 

who testified they hired Morris to perform work, for which he was paid, after 

observing his work on certain community service projects. For example, David 

Hayhurst, a Boy Scout acquaintance of Morris, testified he “had seen [Morris] 

do a fair bit of work through the [Boy] Scouts and seemed like he really knew 

what he was doing. So, that’s why we went ahead and [hired Morris].” Id. at 

19. In addition, Amy Johnson, a member of Morris’ church, testified she hired 

Morris to perform work at her home because she “knew of [Morris’] skills and 

what he did through [Boy Scouts]—known him for years and years through 

there. That he was a contractor, designed kitchens, did all that kind of work.” 

Id. at 34.

[4] In 2012, Morris and his son approached the congregation of the Church 

regarding the Olivet Project. They promoted the Olivet Project to the Church 

as a Boy Scout venture, and the Church approved the Olivet Project and its 

design. Brad planned a significant amount of the Olivet Project, and the 

Church did not employ, compensate, or contract with Morris or CKB, and had 

no control or input over the Olivet Project except for approving the project and 

its design. Further, the Boy Scout troop posted a plaque next to the project 

stating the Olivet Project was constructed as a Boy Scout project.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 5 of 14

[5] However, the Olivet Project was constructed under Morris’ supervision and 

could not have been performed without his skills, tools, materials, and 

contractor’s license. Benjamin Miller, the Vanderburgh County Building 

Commissioner, testified the Olivet Project could only be constructed if Morris 

was a properly licensed building contractor in Vanderburgh County. Moreover, 

Vanderburgh County ordinances required Morris to display his contractor’s 

license number on his work vehicle and carry his license with him at the 

construction site. If Morris failed to obey the ordinances, he would be subject 

to a fine. Morris, through his business account, purchased and donated 

$1,244.46 in building materials for the Olivet Project. When Morris prepared 

his tax return, he deducted the cost of the donated materials as a business 

expense.

[6] On August 6, 2012, while working on the Olivet Project, Morris fell from the 

roof of the storage shed and suffered a fracture to his right leg. As a result of 

the fractured leg, Morris underwent three separate surgeries. Following his 

injury, Morris filed a claim with CKB’s worker’s compensation insurance 

carrier, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. West Bend paid Morris 

$5,757.14 in temporary total disability benefits and $87,654.60 for his medical 

treatment. Morris also submitted a claim to Church Mutual Insurance, the 

Church’s liability insurance carrier. Church Mutual paid an additional $10,000 

on behalf of Morris. The Boy Scouts of America’s insurance carrier, Health 

Special Risk, Inc., also paid medical bills on behalf of Morris.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 6 of 14

[7] On February 4, 2013, Morris filed his Application for Adjustment of Claim 

with the Board. A hearing before a Single Member of the Board was held on 

November 3, 2014. The Single Member denied Morris’ claim on January 26, 

2015, and Morris filed his Application for Review by the full Board shortly 

thereafter.

[8] After a hearing before the full Board, the full Board adopted the findings of the 

Single Member, modified the findings by adding findings number six and seven, 

and affirmed the denial of Morris’ Application for Adjustment of Claim. The 

Board determined Morris did not meet his burden to show his injuries arose out 

of and occurred in the course of his employment:

1. [Morris] was hurt while building a yard barn structure as part 

of his son’s Eagle Scout project.

2. [Morris’] business is as a building contractor but at the time of 

his injury he was not being paid for the project.

3. [Morris] introduced evidence that he worked on several Eagle 

Scout projects with others seeking goodwill and this translated 

into an increased clientele for the business.

4. [Morris’] injury did not arise out of his employment with 

Custom Kitchens.

5. [Morris] should take nothing on his Application for 

Adjustment of Claim filed February 4, 2013.

6. [Morris] is and has been a committed parent, supporter and 

leader in his sons’ Boy Scout troop.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 7 of 14

7. [Morris’] injury arose out of an activity that was motivated by 

[Morris’] desire to further his son’s Eagle project in particular 

and to further the goals [of] his son’s Boy Scout troop in 

general and did not arise from the business of which [Morris]

is the sole proprietor.

Appellant’s Appendix at 4-9. Morris now appeals; CKB cross-appeals, seeking 

reimbursement of monies paid to or on behalf of Morris.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review 

[9] The Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed to 

effectuate its humane purpose. Daugherty v. Indus. Contracting & Erecting, 802 

N.E.2d 912, 919 (Ind. 2004). In reviewing a challenge to a decision of the 

Board, this court is bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may 

not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a 

contrary conclusion. Kovatch v. A.M. Gen., 679 N.E.2d 940, 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1997), trans. denied. We neither reweigh the evidence, nor judge the credibility 

of the witnesses. Id. at 942-43. “We must disregard all evidence unfavorable to 

the decision and must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences 

therefrom which support the Board’s findings.” Id. at 942. The burden rests 

with the claimant to prove a right to compensation under the Worker’s 

Compensation Act. Danielson v. Pratt Indus., Inc., 846 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2006). “Although we are not bound by the Board’s interpretations of law, 

we will reverse the Board’s decision only if the Board incorrectly interpreted the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 8 of 14

[Worker’s Compensation] Act.” Krause v. Ind. Univ.-Purdue Univ. at Indianapolis, 

866 N.E.2d 846, 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

II. Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment

[10] Indiana Code section 22-3-2-2(a) mandates the payment of compensation to 

employees for “personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the 

course of the employment . . . .” The dual requirements the accident be 

“arising out of” and “in the course of” employment must both be met, and 

neither alone is sufficient. Conway v. Sch. City of East Chicago, 734 N.E.2d 594, 

598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. An injury “arises out of” employment 

when a causal nexus exists between the injury sustained and the duties or 

services performed by the injured employee. Milledge v. Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926, 

929 (Ind. 2003). A causal connection exists when a reasonable person would 

consider the injury to be the result of a risk incidental to employment or when 

there is a connection between employment and the injury. Milledge, 784 N.E.2d 

at 929. An accident occurs “in the course of employment” when it takes place 

within the period of employment, at a place where the employee may 

reasonably be, and while the employee is fulfilling the duties of employment or 

while engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Id. 

[11] In Knoy v. Cary, 813 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. 2004), Gemtron Corporation, a glass 

shelving manufacturer, sponsored a cleanup project at a Vincennes city park. 

Employees were encouraged, but not required, to attend the cleanup. Notice of 

the project was posted on a company bulletin board inviting employees to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 9 of 14

attend. The company publicized the event with advertisements in the local 

newspaper and supplied participating employees with work gloves, food, and 

beverages. Donald Knoy, a Gemtron employee, supplied a tractor for 

removing debris from a riverbank. During the cleanup, Joseph Cary, another 

Gemtron employee, was injured by Knoy’s negligent operation of the tractor. 

Cary filed suit against Knoy in Knox Superior Court. While the case was 

appealed to the supreme court on a different issue—whether the trial court 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Cary’s exclusive remedy was under 

the Act—the principle question was whether Cary’s injury “ar[ose] out of and 

in the course of” employment. Knoy, 813 N.E.2d at 1171.

[12] Ultimately, our supreme court concluded Cary’s injuries arose out of and in the 

course of his employment with Gemtron and were therefore covered by the Act. 

In reaching this decision, the supreme court relied on two cases: Noble v. 

Zimmerman, 237 Ind. 556, 146 N.E.2d 828 (1957) and Ski World, Inc. v. Fife, 489 

N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). The supreme court summarized those cases, 

stating,

[I]n Noble, this Court allowed recovery under the Worker’s 

Compensation Act for an employee’s death that occurred at an 

after-hours activity sponsored by his employer. The employer in 

Noble held a business meeting at his lakeside summer residence 

with the understanding that at the conclusion of the meeting, 

dinner would be provided and there would be an opportunity for 

the employees to enjoy swimming and boating. After the 

business meeting concluded, an employee was injured diving into 

the lake and subsequently died. In sustaining compensation for 

his death under the Worker’s Compensation Act, this Court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 10 of 14

explained that injuries suffered while participating in after-hours 

recreational activities are usually not compensable because the 

injuries typically occur when the employee is not performing any 

duty related to his employment. The Court reasoned, however, 

that “in recent years it has become increasingly evident that 

employers are more and more utilizing recreational programs for 

their employees . . . in aiding and promoting better business 

relations with persons in their employ.” The Court concluded 

that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of his 

employment. 

The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in [Ski 

World], involving an injury during an after-hours party for the 

employees sponsored by the employer. The court reasoned that 

this Court’s emphasis in Noble was not on whether attendance at 

the party was required, but on the nexus between the claimant’s 

employment and the party. The court pointed out that Ski World 

“encouraged and therefore presumably expected its employees to 

attend the party . . . provided the food, the refreshments, the 

entertainment and the recreational equipment . . . and believed 

that holding such an event would be in its best business 

interests.” This was sufficient connection between the 

employer’s business and the recreational activity to support 

coverage.

Knoy, 813 N.E.2d at 1171-72 (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted). 

The Court further explained that “where the employer’s interests in sponsoring 

an after-hours activity are not merely altruistic, but are also intended to improve 

the business, the activity may be incidental to employment.” Id. at 1172. The 

Court concluded that similar to generating goodwill among employees, an 

employer’s public image and goodwill in the community is a significant 

business consideration. Id. at 1173. Therefore, it was in Gemtron’s business 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 11 of 14

interest to involve itself in community projects and its “sponsorship of and 

participation in the project served its business interests by enhancing its image, 

fostering a good relationship with the local community, and team building 

among its employees.” Id. at 1172.

[13] Morris contends his case is factually and legally analogous to Knoy, and that his 

practice of participating in community service projects “fostered the growth of 

goodwill, his business reputation, and additional business” for CKB. Brief of 

Appellant at 12. In response, CKB recognizes Indiana courts have held some 

after-hours activities leading to an employee’s injury are compensable; 

however, CKB argues the Olivet Project was not an “employer-sponsored 

activit[y],” as required by Knoy. Appellee’s Brief at 13. CKB points out the 

Olivet Project was primarily intended to benefit Brad Morris’ Boy Scout 

ambitions, and that Brad actually planned the project and approached the 

congregation of the Church about the Olivet Project. Further, CKB states, 

Sponsorship by the employer encompasses more than a decision 

by Morris to help his son with an Eagle Scout Project. It 

encompasses more than Morris’ [sic] using some of his tools and 

his building knowledge to assist in the construction of the shed, 

or having his pickup truck parked at the site or, even donating 

some of the materials for the Project.

Id. at 14. 

[14] We do not think “sponsorship” was intended to be a term of art or to connote a 

certain level of community awareness to be achieved by a business; rather, the 

focus is on the “connection between the employer’s interests in improving the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 12 of 14

business by holding the after-hours work-related activity and the employee’s 

employment.” Curry v. D.A.L.L. Anointed, Inc., 966 N.E.2d 91, 95-96 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012) (citing Knoy, 813 N.E.2d at 1172), trans. denied. In this case, Morris 

demonstrated a sufficient connection between his interests in improving his 

business by conducting community service projects and his sole proprietorship. 

At the Single Member Hearing, Morris introduced evidence showing he 

contributed to and participated in thirteen Boy Scout projects over a period of 

ten years. For the Olivet Project, Morris donated the materials his son needed 

to complete the project which were deducted as a business expense, used CKB’s 

tools and equipment, and participated in and directed its construction. Morris 

also parked his truck, which was clearly marked with the name of his business, 

telephone number, and contractor’s license number near the construction site. 

Moreover, the Vanderburgh County Building Commissioner’s testimony 

indicates the Olivet Project could not have been built without a contractor’s 

license, and without Morris’ license, Brad would either have had to create a 

different project or not build one.

[15] CKB stresses the fact Morris primarily intended the Olivet Project to benefit his 

son’s Boy Scout endeavors. For example, Brad planned a significant amount of 

the project, and sought approval from and submitted documents to the Boy 

Scouts to be eligible to achieve an Eagle Scout ranking based on the project.

Although we acknowledge the Olivet Project was primarily intended for this 

purpose, it does not alter the final resolution of the issue. In Knoy, Gemtron 

sponsored and engaged its employees to participate in a community cleanup 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 13 of 14

project of a local park. Knoy does not indicate what level of involvement, if any 

at all, Gemtron contributed to planning the actual cleanup. Likewise, Morris

contributed to and participated in the Olivet Project. Regardless of whether 

Brad planned a significant amount of the Olivet Project, the facts demonstrate 

Morris played a significant role in the project, and it could not have been 

completed without his contributions.

[16] Further, Morris’ business received a direct benefit from his participation in 

community service projects, such as this one. Cf. Knoy, 813 N.E.2d at 1172 

(noting Gemtron did not receive or expect a direct business benefit). Morris 

testified that while improving his business and community relations were not 

his “primary concern for doing the [community service] projects,” his 

businesses did garner a substantial amount of business and goodwill as a result. 

Tr. at 45. Morris described his participation in the projects as opportunities for 

“networking” and engaging with the community, and at the Single Member 

Hearing Morris produced three witnesses who testified they hired Morris after 

observing his prior work on community service projects. Id. All of Morris’ 

witnesses testified they knew of Morris and CKB through Morris’ participation 

in Boy Scouts, observed the quality of his work on Boy Scout community 

service projects, and subsequently hired him to complete remodeling or kitchen 

design in their homes. 

[17] As noted above, the Worker’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in 

order to effectuate its humane purpose, and we conclude these facts inescapably 

lead to a decision opposite of the Board’s decision—that Morris’ injury arose
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 93A02-1601-EX-179 | December 7, 2016 Page 14 of 14

out of and in the course of his employment. See Daugherty, 802 N.E.2d at 919. 

Because we hold Morris’ injury is covered by the Worker’s Compensation Act, 

we do not address CKB’s cross-appeal. 

Conclusion

[18] We conclude the facts presented inescapably lead to a decision opposite of the 

Board’s decision, and that Morris’ injury arose out of and in the course of his 

employment. Therefore, Morris’ injury is covered by the Indiana’s Worker’s 

Compensation Act. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for determination of 

the benefits he should receive.

[19] Reversed and remanded.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.