An Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who accidentally shot himself while working is not eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The case is Goins v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 2026 LX 75962 (Ariz. App. 2026).
Background
Kenyatta Goins worked as an estimator at Chaney's Collision Center in Glendale, Arizona. His duties included assessing damages to vehicles caused by accidents. Six weeks into his employment, he got into a pickup truck in order to assess its damage and his pistol accidentally discharged.
The gun was in his waistband and secured by a tactical belt, but was not in a holster. Goins was shot in the leg and filed for workers' compensation benefits, but the claim was denied by his employer and their insurer.
Goins challenged the denial, and an administrative law judge held a hearing to decide if the injury was compensable. The judge sided with the employer and affirmed the denial. Goins appealed the ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals
Goins asserted that the judge erred in finding that there was an insufficient causal relationship between the employment and the injury. The Court of Appeals stated that "an injured worker has the burden of establishing the statutory elements of a compensable workers' compensation claim."
This means that Goins must prove that he suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The court found that Goins was easily acting in the course of employment when the injury happened. Goins was at the workplace during hours when he was expected to work and was performing one of his employment duties at the time of the injury.
The court then looked at whether the injury arose out of Goins' employment. To determine if an injury is considered out of employment, the origin and the nature of the risk are examined. The three types of risks are employment risks, personal risks, and mixed risks which consist of a combination of personal and employment risks.
Goins argued that his injury was derived from a mixed risk because it occurred while performing a work-related activity and because he was carrying the gun for personal protection. The court noted that Goins did not reference any authority that classified the accidental discharge of a gun kept for personal protection while working as a mixed risk. A common example of a mixed risk is someone with preexisting heart problems who suffers injury because of strain caused by work.
Goins argued that in Goodyear Aircraft Corp. V. Indus. Comm'n, an activity can be a contributing factor to an injury when the activity is authorized, necessary, or a condition of the work. In Goodyear, an employee only had a 30-minute lunch break and was instructed to bring lunch to work. While placing a bottled soda into a cooler, the bottle exploded and the employee's eye was struck by a piece of glass, causing permanent loss of sight.
The ICA awarded benefits and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the ruling, stating that eating was a necessity and an accident from preparing or eating food is "just as much an accident arising out of the employment as in the case of caring for a machine or any other appliance."
Goins testified that he carried the concealed firearm daily for personal safety, both at work and elsewhere. He described the area around Chaney's as dangerous, citing homeless individuals, vagrants, high crime statistics, and the discovery of dead bodies in the area.
Goins argued that the risks associated with carrying the gun were partly employment-related since his manager and coworkers knew he carried a gun at work and his employer did not prohibit it.
The court distinguished the Goodyear case with this case—just because his employer did not expressly prohibit carrying a gun, it does not make it necessary for his employment, and Goins had no security duties as part of his employment.
Goins' opinion that Chaney's was in a dangerous area was subjective and contradicted by his manager, who testified that he considered Chaney's a safe workplace, having never witnessed a crime on the property or felt threatened while at work. The manager also regularly carried a gun but left it in his vehicle while working. Further, Goins carried the gun at all times, regardless of whether he was at work or not, undermining his claim of workplace safety concerns.
The court found that Goins failed to show "that the risk was inherent to his employment or incidental to the discharge of his duties." They agreed with the administrative law judge that the risk brought upon by the gun was entirely personal and affirmed the decision.
Editor's Note: The employer's lack of expressly prohibiting carrying the gun did not mean they authorized it and did not create an employment-related risk. For an injury involving a personal item to be compensable, the item must be required by the job or incidental to job duties.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.