With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stated that, as a conclusion of law, “[w]e fail to see how weapon choice could change an otherwise personal assault to a work-related one.... ” For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the Board’s conclusion is correct. A personal assault upon an employee by a co-worker is not causally connected to the employee’s employment simply because the assailant utilized an implement of the employment to deliver the injurious blow. See, e.g., White v. Whiteway Pharmacy, Inc., 210 Tenn. 449, 360 S.W.2d 12, 15 (1962) (deeming insignificant the fact that “the murder weapon belonged to the employer” and concluding that “the fact that [the employee] lost her life in her employer’s place of business was merely a coincidence”); Rice v. Revere Copper & Brass, 186 Md. 561, 48 A.2d 166, 169 (1946) (<HOLDING>); Bader-Rondeau v. Truth or Consequences, 113

A: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
B: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
C: holding that the mere relationship of coemployment plus the fact that the blow was delivered by coemployee with an implement belonging to the employer are not sufficient to establish either a primary or causal connection between the working environment and the injury
D: holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
C.