An Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling permitting civil litigation in the case of a financial adviser’s shooting of a coworker is helping to set a precedent on violence in the workplace, experts say.

In another example of an injured worker overcoming workers compensation exclusivity in a case of workplace violence —echoing similar lower court rulings in Virginia — Oklahoma’s highest court determined the shooter’s estate wasn’t shielded from legal liability. The defense had argued the matter should remain in workers comp because the victim received comp benefits, according to the ruling in Oklahoma Supreme Court Case No. 121897.

The case involves a financial adviser who was shot by a 90-year-old coworker suffering from psychological issues. The shooting  took place in June 2022 at a Morgan Stanley office in Oklahoma City. The victim sued the shooter’s estate for assault, battery and emotional distress and also sued the shooter’s wife for negligence.

The trial judge had granted summary judgment to the estate, but the state high court overturned that decision.

“The Oklahoma Supreme Court made the correct decision by holding that a co-employee must have been acting within the course and scope of their employment for workers compensation exclusivity to apply when they injured another employee,” said Clayton Hasbrook, a plaintiffs personal injury attorney with Hasbrook & Hasbrook PLLC in Oklahoma City.

The trial court had ruled the case was workers comp exclusive, holding that only an injured employee, not a perpetrator, must be acting within the course and scope of employment for the matter to remain in workers comp.

But the Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed, saying the shooter would also have to have been acting within the course and scope of employment if seeking civil tort immunity, which wasn’t the case here.

Mr. Hasbrook said the lower court’s determination was an “overly broad reading that would extend workers comp protections to co-employees 24/7, regardless of the circumstances.”

“That appears to go beyond the intent and purpose of the exclusive remedy provision,” he said.

Other attorneys agreed.

“Having one employee pull a gun and shoot another employee is going to be an intentional wrong such that the employee who shot the other would most likely be able to be sued civilly,” said Brad Andreen, a workers comp defense attorney with Pittsburgh-based Rulis & Bochicchio LLC.

Mr. Andreen said that in Pennsylvania, where he practices, the only way to escape workers comp exclusivity is when a perpetrator commits an intentional act. In such a case, the worker who committed the violence could likely be sued but the employer would probably still be protected by civil immunity.

In the Oklahoma case, the fact that the shooter wasn’t working on the day of the incident “further strengthens the argument that he should have been able to be sued via a civil action,” Mr. Andreen said.

In California, which on July 1 will begin enforcing a new law requiring employers to have in place anti-violence plans to keep employees safer in the workplace, attorneys say similar cases to the Oklahoma shooting would likely escape workers comp exclusive remedy — but not always.

“One argument for exclusive jurisdiction is that whatever happens at the workplace is still the workplace,” said Alan Gurvey, a claimants attorney with Sherman Oaks, California-based Rowen, Gurvey & Win.

But Mr. Gurvey said all cases are unique and fact-specific, so it’s possible to escape workers comp exclusivity if an incident is egregious enough.