DEFENSE OF STRESS-RELATED CLAIMS

How are stress-related claims defended? Stress claims are difficult to defend because they are so intangible. In addition, there will almost always be evidence of nonwork-related stress in an employee's life that the employer can present. Whatever standard is applied in a particular jurisdiction, the defense of causation will always be available to help disprove a stress claim. The following techniques can be used to help defend a stress claim:

Case Law Examples

The case law on stress and other mental injuries is varied in its results, with some states treating stress cases favorably and others disfavorably. As far as defending stress cases, the following case examples should give some insights into how courts view stress cases and the kind of fact patterns that lead to victory or defeat. 

In a case from Pennsylvania, for example, a police officer who came under intense media scrutiny following an indictment for voluntary manslaughter was not entitled to workers compensation benefits for the mental injury that developed from his experience under the media spotlight. 

The officer shot and killed an individual who had barricaded himself inside a building. Following the shooting incident, the officer became the target of a criminal investigation. He was indicted and tried, but eventually acquitted. 

The high-profile case drew a great deal of media attention. As a result, the officer suffered a psychic injury and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. His request for benefits, however, was denied. 

Like many states, Pennsylvania requires that a claim for a purely mental injury (i.e. one that is not accompanied by physical harm) must be a reaction to abnormal working conditions. According to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the grand jury investigation, the indictment, the trial, and all the media attention associated with the high profile case did not constitute abnormal working conditions. 

The court explained that the showing of abnormal working conditions must establish a connection between the psychic injury and the employment. In this case, the officer failed to make such a connection. As the court viewed it, the injury was a reaction to the media scrutiny, not the shooting incident. 

**** 

What about a panic disorder that is triggered by long hours and other stressful working conditions? Is that a compensable injury? In New York it is, as the following case demonstrates. 

The case involved a convenience store manager who suffered a panic attack that required five days hospitalization. The attack was brought on by staff changes in the months preceding the attack that required the manager to increase his workload to seven days and 70 hours a week. He began having trouble sleeping and lost 35 pounds. He filed a claim for workers compensation benefits for the mental injury. 

In New York, mental injuries are not compensable if they are a direct result of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer. The employer argued, therefore, that the injury was not compensable because the personnel changes were made in good faith. 

The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the store manager s stress was not a direct result of any of the personnel decisions. In fact, as the court pointed out, none of the personnel decisions affected the manager directly. As the court noted, the employer s decisions only affected the manager indirectly in the form of longer hours and increased responsibility. As such, the mental injury that he suffered was compensable because it was caused by job stress and not from a personnel decision. 

In a case from Michigan, a police officer who suffered a mental injury as a result of being humiliated in front of his peers was entitled to benefits. 

The police officer came under an internal investigation after his wife alleged that he had physically assaulted her and pulled a gun on his stepson. A state psychologist recommended that the officer be relieved of his badge and gun and required to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether he was emotionally fit to carry a weapon. 

In light of the psychologist s report, the officer was called into a meeting with other officers and placed on administrative leave. He was told that he could return to work as early as the next day, provided he underwent a psychological evaluation. 

The officer never returned to work or underwent the psychological evaluation. Instead, he continued to collect wages and benefits until he was placed on disability retirement. Meanwhile, the charges that his wife filed against him were dropped for lack of credibility. 

The officer eventually filed workers compensation benefits, claiming that he suffered a mental injury as a result of being humiliated in front of his fellow officers. The claim was denied in light of a rule that a mental injury resulting from a termination is not compensable. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, however, noting that the officer was not terminated but suspended. 

The employer nonetheless argued that the Court should adopt a rule that mental injuries resulting from any personnel actions should not be compensable. As the employer pointed out, if the employer is required to terminate in order to protect itself from a mental claim, then the Court would be encouraging terminations rather than lesser forms of discipline. 

The Court rejected the argument, finding that even injuries resulting from a personnel decision ought to compensable. The Court noted that injuries that result from stresses, tensions, and other associations of the work environment are compensable. 

In a case from Pennsylvania, a prison guard who claimed that his mental injury resulted from abnormal stress at work--profanity and violence--was denied benefits for lack of proof that the working conditions the guard was exposed to at work was anything but normal. 

The African American guard had worked at the prison for two years. He claimed that he was harassed by both white and African American guards and inmates. In the turbulent atmosphere of the prison, he felt that he could not trust his co-workers in potentially life-threatening situations. 

His psychiatrist diagnosed him with a major depressive order, and the claimant attributed the disabling depression to his work. His employer, however, denied the claim. The workers compensation judge agreed with the employer and denied benefits. 

According to Pennsylvania s workers compensation law, a psychiatric disability caused by work-related stress is compensable, provided the stress is unusual for the claimant s occupation. A subjective reaction to normal working conditions would not be compensable. The proof necessary for a claim must either establish a single incident of abnormal stressful working conditions or a combination of events that would be considered abnormally stressful. 

On appeal, the court upheld the judge s decision. The court noted that a certain amount of violence and profanity at the prison was an unfortunate consequence of the prison atmosphere. Even the claimant admitted that exposure to violence and profanity was common to all of the guards at the prison. In addition, the medical testimony revealed that the claimant had a history of depression, family problems, marital problems, tax problems, and drug and alcohol abuse problems. On the basis of such testimony, the court ruled that the claimant s injury was not a result of abnormal working conditions and denied benefits. 

****

Mental injuries triggered by job evaluations. When it comes to mental injuries, a common scenario is the mental injury that is triggered by a critical job evaluation. The typical scene involves a worker who overreacts to the criticism of his or her job performance and loses the ability to function at work because of the resultant stress. Is the employer responsible for these injuries? In general, the answer is no, but as with all things in workers compensation there are some exceptions. The following cases provide some illustrations of how these rules play out in the real world. 

In a case from New York, for example, a mental injury that developed gradually over time but climaxed during a job performance evaluation was compensable despite a long-established rule that mental injuries that stem from performance evaluations are not compensable. 

The claimant s psychic injury was triggered during a meeting with her supervisor. She sought medical treatment and never returned to work. She eventually filed a workers compensation claim for the mental injury contending that the injury was a result of a pattern of harassment from her supervisor. 

The employer denied the claim on the basis of a rule in New York that mental injuries that stem from lawful, good-faith personnel decisions are not compensable. The Workers Compensation Board found the mental injury compensable, however, concluding that it was a result of excessive work-related stress, including additional work that the supervisor assigned the claimant. 

In a case from New York that reached the opposite conclusion, a nurse who suffered a mental injury after being criticized for her job performance was not entitled to benefits for the mental injury because it resulted from a good faith job evaluation.

The nurse worked in the pediatric unit of a hospital that was having staffing problems. On the night preceding her mental injury, the nurse was covering another nurse s shift and noticed that a feeding tube had been improperly placed in a child s lung rather than the child s stomach. She reported the incident to a supervising doctor who initially disbelieved the nurse s account, but verified the situation and corrected it. 

The next day the nurse was criticized by her supervisor for failing to note on the patient s chart her intervention in the feeding tube incident. As a result of the criticism, the nurse felt chest pains and left work. She was ultimately diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She never returned to work. 

Her subsequent claim for workers compensation benefits for the mental injury was rejected by the hospital on the basis that it was triggered by a good-faith job evaluation. The Workers Compensation Board agreed with the employer and denied benefits. 

On appeal, the nurse argued that the stress she suffered was unusual in that it resulted from insufficient staffing and the feeding tube incident. The Court found, however, that the stress she suffered was no greater than the type of stress that other nurses experienced in the normal job environment. 

A welfare caseworker with 18 years of experience with the state filed for workers com benefits claiming her condition was the result of her supervisor s criticism. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire rejected the employer s claim that the caseworker s injury was not an accident because stress is a natural, usual, anticipated, and expected effect of criticism. The court noted, however, that major depression and not stress was the claimed injury. The court found that such a serious mental injury constitutes an unexpected consequence of good faith criticism of an employee s performance. In addition, the court held that ample and competent proof supported the caseworker s claim that the job related stress was greater than normal non-employment related stress. A clinical psychologist testified that the caseworker s major psychological stressor was her work supervisor. 

Reprinted with permission. © CCH