The bullet went through Zwerner’s left hand — which she held up as the boy opened fire — and struck her in the upper chest and shoulder. She managed to shuttle about 18 students out of the classroom before seeking help. Zwerner was released from the hospital 10 days later.

The news that a 6-year-old student shot his teacher made headlines across the world.

In the $40 million lawsuit, filed in April 2023, Zwerner asserts that the school division allowed the shooting to happen. For one thing, the lawsuit maintains, Richneck’s assistant principal ignored several credible warnings that the boy was armed.

In November, Newport News Circuit Court Judge Matthew W. Hoffman rejected the school board’s argument that Zwerner’s sole remedy was filing a worker’s compensation claim. He ruled in part that getting shot by a student in a classroom cannot be considered a job hazard of teaching first grade students.

But the school board contends Hoffman got it wrong.

Under long-standing Virginia law, personal injury claims “arising out of and in the course of employment” must be resolved exclusively by the Workers’ Compensation Act. In other words, such workers are barred from pursuing claims through personal injury lawsuits like Zwerner’s. The school board contends the school shooting arose out of Zwerner’s employment.

If she collected Worker’s Comp, Zwerner would collect two-thirds of her teacher’s pay — tax-free — for nine years and eight months, plus lifetime medical benefits for the treatment of her injury.

Although judicial rulings typically cannot be appealed until after a trial is over, the school board sought permission to have the Worker’s Compensation issue decided now rather than after the time and expense of the January trial.

The appellate court ruling Friday doesn’t mean Zwerner’s side will ultimately prevail on the issue. The school board could still appeal the ruling after trial, which could nullify the trial and send the case for a Worker’s Comp claim.

State law allows such “interlocutory” appeals only under certain conditions. Such criteria include that there’s no “clear, compelling” higher court precedent on the issues in dispute, that there’s substantial disagreement over it, and that an appeal is in the parties’ best interest.

In its ruling on Friday, the Court of Appeals panel said there is a “clear, controlling precedent” on the issues presented in the case. Zwerner’s attorneys interpreted that to mean the appeals court believes Hoffman had a firm basis in the case law to allow the case to trial.

©2024 Daily Press. Visit at dailypress.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.