2 min read
When DeAngelo Profit was brutally attacked while cleaning hotel rooms at the DoubleTree Suites, his life changed forever. The assault left him seriously injured, unable to work, and facing mounting medical bills. Like any employee hurt on the job, Mr. Profit filed for workers' compensation benefits designed to help injured workers recover without having to prove their employer was at fault.
But the insurance company argued that because Mr. Profit had known his attacker and previously worked with him, his injuries weren't covered. They wanted to leave him without any benefits at all.
That's when we stepped in. And we didn't stop fighting until we stood before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
"May it please the court. Council, my name is Aaron Ferguson and I am here on behalf of Mr. Profit."
With those words, Aaron began his argument before Minnesota's highest court. The stakes were high—not just for Mr. Profit, but for every Minnesota worker who might face violence on the job.
The case centered on a critical question: When someone is attacked at work by a mentally ill assailant, should workers' compensation cover their injuries? The insurance company sought a loophole that would deny benefits whenever an attacker had any prior connection to the victim, no matter how slight or irrelevant to the attack.
The Human Story Behind the Law
In the Supreme Court courtroom, Aaron framed the case, focusing on what mattered most: Mr. Profit was doing his job when he was attacked. The assault happened because he was at work, in his workplace, during his shift.
"For all intents and purposes, the assailant in this case was a stranger in mind," Aaron argued. The attacker suffered from mental illness so severe that he was initially found incompetent to stand trial. His delusions had nothing to do with any past relationship with Mr. Profit.
As Justice Chutich observed during arguments: "If it had been a stranger who had come in and assaulted Mr. Profit, it would be covered... Because he was at work, he was doing his job."
That was exactly our point. Why should coverage depend on whether a delusional attacker happened to have crossed paths with the victim years before?
Fighting the Good Fight
Throughout the intense questioning from the justices, we never lost sight of the bigger picture. This was about ensuring that workers like Mr. Profit aren't abandoned by the system when they need help most.
"The events that transpired that day created a unique inherent risk of the job as a house man," Aaron explained. "Mr. Profit is a house man exposed to the risks inherent with guests."
We pushed back against attempts to dismiss personal motives and create a straight causation test. As we told the court, if we accepted that interpretation, "we've essentially written out of the statute what it means to intend to injure for personal reasons."
This video has been edited to include select excerpts relevant to the topics discussed in this blog. To view the full proceedings, visit the Minnesota Supreme Court Oral Argument Video Page.
Your Advocate When It Matters Most
While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against our position, our advocacy highlighted an important principle: Every worker deserves zealous representation, especially when facing powerful insurance companies trying to deny rightful benefits.
Mr. Profit's case may not have ended with the result we fought for, but our advocacy ensured his voice was heard at the highest level of Minnesota's justice system. We presented compelling arguments that challenged existing interpretations and fought to expand protections for workers.
If you've been injured at work, whether through an assault, accident, or any other cause, don't let insurance companies intimidate you into accepting less than you deserve. You have rights, and you deserve an advocate who will fight for them all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court if necessary.
Contact us for a free consultation and let us show you what fearless advocacy looks like.
