Court Opinion

ID: 9539038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:45:46.012089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:24.083518
License: Public Domain

PIERCE, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority, and would set aside the order and remand for additional findings as I do not believe the Commission had sufficient findings before it to counteract an apparent prohibition determined by the General Assembly.
Under § 8-52-102(l)(c), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), workmen’s compensation benefits are to be awarded to an injured worker or to the heirs of a decedent worker:
“Where the injury or death is proximately caused by an injury or occupational disease arising out of and in the course *758of his employment and is not intentionally self-inflicted.”
The General Assembly has unequivocally stated that an intentionally self-inflicted injury resulting in death is not compensable, even if there is a nexus between the death and the employment. The wisdom of such policy is for that branch of government to determine.
Here, it was uncontested that Wright’s death was self-inflicted and not accidental. However, the hearing officer failed to make any findings concerning whether Wright, in view of his mental disorder, was capable of forming the intent to harm himself. I would remand the case for findings on this issue.