Title: Lopez v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 191545
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: August 5, 2021

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
GLADYS LOPEZ, AS PERSONAL 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 
OF LIZETH LOPEZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 191545 
 
 
 
 
JUSTICE D. ARTHUR KELSEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
             AUGUST 5, 2021 
INTERCEPT YOUTH SERVICES, INC. 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 
Judge Angela L. Horan 
 
 
The circuit court granted a plea in bar and dismissed a complaint alleging that an 
employer operating a residential program for at-risk youth had negligently failed to protect an 
employee who had been murdered by one of the residents.  The court held that pursuant to Code 
§ 65.2-307(A), the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the 
employee’s death.  We agree and affirm. 
I. 
In 2016, Lizeth Lopez worked as an Evening Support Counselor for Intercept Youth 
Services, Inc. (“Intercept”), which owns and operates a YouthQuest Independent Living program 
for at-risk youth.  At the time, approximately 98% of the residents had mental-health diagnoses, 
and they had all been referred to the program from psychiatric hospitals, group homes, 
therapeutic foster homes, or regular foster homes.  Trained in behavior management and conflict 
de-escalation, Lopez’s duties included familiarizing herself with the charts of all residents to 
become aware of their mental-health history, criminal history, medical needs, and behavioral 
patterns.  She managed residents’ prescription medications, assisted with their schoolwork, and 
remained on-call during her shift to meet their needs.  During the evening shift, Lopez and other 
evening counselors kept the doors to the office locked, but residents were welcome to come to 
the office and request her assistance. 
2 
 
The Virginia Department of Social Services referred Ronald F. Dorsey Jr. to the 
YouthQuest program in 2015 when he was 17 or 18 years old.  In the circuit court, Lopez’s 
Estate claimed that when Dorsey was 12 years old, he had attempted to abduct and rape one of 
his therapists and had received sex-offender treatment as a consequence.  His YouthQuest chart 
noted that he had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and enuresis.  While he was in the 
program, Dorsey remained in the most restrictive, least independent phase, which required, 
among other things, a 10:00 p.m. curfew on weeknights. 
On April 17, 2016, Lopez worked her 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift.  Sometime after 10:00 
p.m., Dorsey appeared at the locked door of Lopez’s office and stated that he needed medication.  
Responsible for administering prescription medication, Lopez unlocked the door and allowed 
Dorsey inside.  Dorsey then strangled Lopez to death, dragged her out of her office, and threw 
her body into a drainage ditch.  Four months later, he murdered another YouthQuest counselor.  
After the second murder, police identified Dorsey as the perpetrator and arrested him for both 
murders.  He pleaded guilty to the murders. 
Seeking $10,000,000 in damages, the personal representative of Lopez’s Estate filed a 
negligence claim against Intercept.1  The Estate claimed that Intercept had negligently created an 
unsafe work environment for Lopez by failing to 
 “properly assess, screen and/or review the individual participants in 
the program to ensure that they will not be a danger to other 
residents and employees of the program;” 
 “closely monitor residents who they know or should have known to 
have a history of violent behavior;” 
 “ensure that residents could not make unauthorized exits from their 
rooms after curfew;” 
 
 
1 The Estate also sued UDR, Inc., which had allegedly “owned, operated, managed, 
and/or maintained the YouthQuest office and residences” where the murder had occurred.  See 
J.A. at 2, 7.  The Estate later nonsuited its claims against UDR, Inc. 
3 
 
 “prevent residents from exiting out of their windows;” 
 “provide adequate security to protect the well-being of its 
employees and patrol for residents violating curfew rules;” 
 “warn its counselors about Dorsey’s violent urges;” 
 “establish rules to prevent female counselors from being alone with 
Dorsey;” 
 “maintain video footage of common areas and offices;” 
 “establish a protocol to prevent its Youth Counselors from being 
alone at night;” 
 “train Youth Counselors to respond properly to a resident violating 
curfew rules; and” 
 “report any missing persons to the police.” 
J.A. at 6.  For these reasons, the Estate alleged that Intercept’s negligence was the “direct and 
proximate cause” of Lopez’s murder.  Id. at 6-7. 
Intercept responded to the complaint with a plea in bar, arguing that the exclusivity 
provision of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, Code § 65.2-307(A), precluded her 
negligence and wrongful death claims against Intercept.  After conducting an evidentiary 
hearing, the circuit court began its analysis by summarizing the complaint: 
This lawsuit basically has been brought on the theory that both [the 
second murder victim] and Ms. Lopez were placed by their 
employment in a situation where the employer owed them some 
duty to protect them.  So as has already been cited, this was 
observed by the Court in the Plummer case,[2] I believe it was.  It 
puts us square[ly] within what the Workers’ Compensation is set 
up to address. 
The analysis does not end there.  I just observe that it is a 
little inconsistent to be saying that the employer owed a duty but 
that what happened here was not in any way related to the fact that 
these two people were employees. 
J.A. at 254-55.  Completing its analysis, the court then turned to the evidence presented at the 
plea-in-bar hearing and found that Lopez’s death had been 
 
2 Plummer v. Landmark Commc’ns, Inc., 235 Va. 78, 86-87 (1988). 
4 
 
primarily, of course, caused by the homicidal tendencies of Mr. 
Dorsey, but that [she was] selected for reasons that were related to 
[her] employment.  It wasn’t simply that he went to a spot and 
found [her] there. 
 
I am finding from this evidence that . . . an advantage was 
taken of the spot where [her] employer required [her] to be . . . . 
. . . I’m not finding on this evidence — that anybody here 
could have foreseen this necessarily. . . .  But it is pretty clear that 
Mr. Dorsey knew that [Lopez’s] employment put [her] in a 
situation where [she was] particularly vulnerable to his attacks. 
Id. at 255-56.  These findings led to the court’s conclusion that Lopez’s death had arisen out of 
and in the course of her employment, and thus, that her Estate’s exclusive remedy was to seek 
benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.  The court entered a final order granting the plea 
in bar and dismissing the civil action with prejudice. 
II. 
 
On appeal, the Estate argues that the circuit court erred in granting the plea in bar because 
the Workers’ Compensation Act provides no remedy for Lopez’s death.  We disagree. 
A. 
The Workers’ Compensation Act, now over a century old, “reflects a legislative ‘quid pro 
quo’ that gave workers the right to assert no-fault liability against their employers (a right that 
they had never possessed) and took from them the right to sue their employers in tort for 
negligence (a right that they had possessed under the common law).”  Jeffreys v. Uninsured 
Emp.’s Fund, 297 Va. 82, 93 (2019); see also Butler v. Southern States Coop., Inc., 270 Va. 459, 
465 (2005).  To be effective, the Act must be interpreted to maintain that delicate balance of 
competing policies implicit in this “societal exchange,” Roller v. Basic Constr. Co., 238 Va. 321, 
327 (1989).  “A view of the Act’s coverage that is too broad would authorize an award of 
compensation benefits but would bar a tort recovery, and a view that is too narrow would 
5 
 
authorize a tort recovery but would bar an award of compensation benefits.”  Jeffreys, 297 Va. at 
93. 
Code § 65.2-101’s definition of a covered “[i]njury” polices the border between coverage 
and noncoverage.  Subject to various statutory qualifications, an injury covered by the Act 
“means only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment or 
occupational disease.”  Code § 65.2-101.  The “arising out of” and “in the course of” elements of 
this definition “are not synonymous,” and both must be satisfied for the Act to apply.  R & T 
Invs., Ltd. v. Johns, 228 Va. 249, 252 (1984).  The parties in this case agree that given the unique 
nature of the statute, “[e]ven murder may be an accident,” Hopson v. Hungerford Coal Co., 187 
Va. 299, 305 (1948).  They also concede that the fatal injury occurred in the course of the 
employment.  They dispute only whether the injury arose out of the employment. 
The “arising out of” requirement focuses on “the origin or cause of the injury.”  R & T 
Invs., Ltd., 228 Va. at 252.  The requirement can only be satisfied “if there is a causal connection 
between the claimant’s injury and the conditions under which the employer requires the work to 
be performed.”  Id.  The doctrine “excludes ‘an injury which comes from a hazard to which the 
employee would have been equally exposed apart from the employment.’”  Taylor v. Mobil 
Corp., 248 Va. 101, 107 (1994) (citation omitted).  Put another way, an actual risk of 
employment is “not merely the risk of being injured while at work.”  Id.  In contrast to the 
“positional risk” doctrine, “which we have consistently rejected,” the actual-risk doctrine insists 
that “[t]he causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.”  
Hill City Trucking, Inc. v. Christian, 238 Va. 735, 739-40 (1989) (emphasis added) (quoting 
Baggett Transp. Co. of Birmingham v. Dillon, 219 Va. 633, 638 (1978)).  Because “it is 
practically impossible to formulate any one definition that will include every injury embraced” 
6 
 
by this standard and “exclude all injuries not embraced therein,” Honaker & Feeney v. Hartley, 
140 Va. 1, 8 (1924), courts contextualize the actual-risk doctrine to recognizable categories of 
employment. 
In cases involving physical assaults against an employee, “the clearest ground of 
compensability . . . is a showing that the probability of assault was augmented either because of 
the particular character of claimant’s job or because of the special liability to assault associated 
with the environment in which he or she must work.”  1 Arthur Larson et al., Larson’s Workers’ 
Compensation Law § 8.01[1][a], at 8-3 (2021).  Consistent with this approach, we have applied 
the actual-risk doctrine to fact-specific scenarios involving various types of physical assaults.  
We have held that a job that involved carrying or handling large sums of money, for example, 
presented the peculiar risk of robbery and assault.  See Continental Life Ins. v. Gough, 161 Va. 
755, 761 (1934).  So too, we have found that an employee of a merchant dealing in precious 
metals, who made regular bank deposits of large sums of cash, had been exposed to a peculiar 
risk of robbery.  See R & T Invs., 228 Va. at 253-54.  An employer’s refusal to protect employees 
from a known, dangerous condition on the premises can also create a peculiar risk under some 
circumstances.  See Plummer v. Landmark Commc’ns, Inc., 235 Va. 78, 86-88 (1988); 
Lynchburg Steam Bakery, Inc. v. Garrett, 161 Va. 517, 519-23 (1933). 
In other scenarios, however, the facts did not show “that the probability of assault was 
augmented either because of the particular character” of the job or the work conditions, 1 Larson 
et al., supra, § 8.01[1][a], at 8-3.  We have held that assaults that are “purely personal in nature, 
both in motivation and in consummation” do not present a peculiar risk arising out of the 
employment, Reamer v. National Serv. Indus., Inc., 237 Va. 466, 470-71 (1989), because they 
are “not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship,” City of Richmond 
7 
 
v. Braxton, 230 Va. 161, 335 (1985) (citation omitted).  A co-worker’s mere “personal 
attraction,” we have similarly held, cannot “fairly be traced to [the victim’s] employment as a 
contributing proximate cause.”  Butler, 270 Va. at 466; see also Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. 
Hazelwood, 249 Va. 369, 374-75 (1995) (finding that the assaultive behavior was motivated by 
“friendship” not any employment circumstance).  The same is true of workplace assaults arising 
out of “personal” disputes wholly unrelated to the employment.  See Hopson, 187 Va. at 307-08 
(affirming the Commission’s factual insufficiency finding); see also Hilton v. Martin, 275 Va. 
176, 180-81 (2008).  It is also settled that cases involving random violence by an “unknown 
assailant” unrelated to any risk “peculiar to the work” do not implicate the Workers’ 
Compensation Act.  See, e.g., Baggett Transp. Co. of Birmingham, 219 Va. at 643-44. 
B. 
The case now before us involves a complaint alleging in granular detail a long list of 
workplace conditions that were the “direct and proximate” cause of Lopez’s murder.  See supra 
at 2-3.  The complaint asserts that the employer (1) failed to screen individual participants in the 
program to ensure that they had no violent propensities, (2) failed to closely monitor residents 
with a known history of violence, (3) failed to ensure that residents obeyed curfew rules, (4) 
failed to warn counselors of Dorsey’s known violent urges, (5) failed to keep Dorsey from being 
alone with female counselors at night, (6) failed to provide video surveillance of common areas 
and offices, (7) failed to train counselors on avoiding nighttime meetings with residents, and (8) 
generally failed to provide adequate security to counselors in the workplace.  Intercept’s 
negligence in failing to correct these dangerous workplace conditions and to adequately protect 
Lopez, the complaint concludes, was the “the direct and proximate cause” of her death.  J.A. at 
6-7. 
8 
 
Supplementing these allegations, the evidence presented at the plea-in-bar hearing 
described the specific circumstances of Dorsey’s fatal assault on Lopez.  He appeared at Lopez’s 
locked office door at night seeking medication.  Because her job duties included providing 
prescription medications to residents, she unlocked and opened her door to him.  Dorsey targeted 
Lopez in her unique capacity as an employee, at her place of employment, on the pretense of 
asking her to perform her employment duties.  These facts, coupled with the allegations in the 
complaint, demonstrate that “the probability of assault was augmented either because of the 
particular character of [Lopez’s] job or because of the special liability to assault associated with 
the environment in which” she was required to work, 1 Larson et al., supra, § 8.01[1][a], at 8-3. 
In this respect, the present case is analogous to Plummer, in which a female newspaper 
carrier was shot as she waited to pick up newspapers at the employer’s designated location at 
2:00 a.m.  See 235 Va. at 80.  She claimed that the location was “deserted, dimly lit,” and known 
by the employer to be unsafe.  See id. at 86-87 (citation omitted).  Her employer allegedly knew 
that this location presented “dangerous conditions in general for its carriers and particularly for 
women” and “failed to protect” her from these conditions.  Id. (citation omitted).  Another 
carrier, the claimant alleged, had complained of “molestation and hassling” at this location by 
unknown individuals.  Id. at 86 (citation omitted).  The claimant’s own assertions implied that 
women in general, and she in particular, had been targeted for assaults at this location and that 
the employer had done nothing to protect them. 
Turning to the “factual allegations” in the Plummer complaint and the interrogatory 
answers provided during discovery, we held that “[u]pon proof” of those facts, the plaintiff’s 
claim would be exclusively covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.  Id. at 86-87.  Finding 
that the claimant’s allegations described an assault arising out of her employment, we reiterated 
9 
 
our holding from Lynchburg Steam Bakery that “when an employer knows of a hazard to which 
the employee is subjected, it is his duty to remove the hazard or in some other way to afford 
adequate protection to his employee.”  Id. at 87 (quoting Lynchburg Steam Bakery, 161 Va. at 
521).  As the circuit court in the present case suggested, the facts and holding of Plummer 
provide the closest parallel in our caselaw to the unique circumstances of this case. 
III. 
 
In sum, the circuit court correctly held that Lopez’s murder had arisen out of the 
conditions of her employment.  Because the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Workers’ 
Compensation Act applies, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the plea in bar and 
dismissing this civil action. 
Affirmed.