Can You Get Workers’ Compensation for Mental Stress in PA?

To prove that a mental stimulus caused a mental injury in Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation requires a demonstration that abnormal working conditions were present. Normal workplace stress is NOT an abnormal working condition. So if your boss is difficult and gives you a lot of work, and it causes you depression or anxiety, it’s not a compensable claim.

However, if you are working in a cubicle for a law firm, and suddenly an intruder bursts in and robs you at gunpoint- well, that will meet the requirement of an abnormal working condition- because it’s not merely a subjective reaction to a normal workplace stress, but something so foreign to the type of work that you do, that it’s objectively abnormal.

On the contrary, if you are a police officer and are traumatized by seeing a deceased person at a traffic accident, that’s likely not going to meet the standard- because as gruesome and difficult as that may be to witness such horror, it’s not to be unexpected in that line of work.

Abnormal working condition cases are highly fact sensitive. To analyze them properly, the attorney must comprehend exactly what happened and ask “is this something entirely unexpected or foreign for this type of work?” If the answer is no, then you will have an uphill battle.

Contact Cardamone Law by calling (267) 651-7945 for a free case assessment with our Pittsburgh, PA Workers’ Comp lawyers.

Distinguishing Burdens Of Proof For Psychological Injury Under The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act

In New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co. v. WCAB (Kalmanowicz), No. 1492 C.D. 2012, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a collision between the Claimant’s truck and a decedent’s automobile was a sufficient physical stimulus causing psychological injury such that the physical-mental analysis should apply rather than a mental-mental analysis in the work comp case. This is a good ruling for injured workers because under the mental-mental analysis, a Claimant must show “abnormal working conditions” which is often very difficult to establish.

Physical Stimulus vs. Abnormal Working Conditions: Psychological Injury Case in PA

In other words, to prove a mental injury under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law, if you can show a triggering physical stimulus or event, your odds at winning will be increased. Conversely, if you cannot show that a physical stimulus caused the mental disorder, you will be forced to show abnormal working conditions (i.e., the mental disorder was more than a subjective reaction to normal working conditions) Claimant’s brain injury attorneys across Pennsylvania know that it is not easy to prove abnormal working conditions based on the case law to date.

The typical physical-mental analysis will apply in a case where a Claimant injures his low back from a work-related injury. Consequently, he develops depression and anxiety from dealing with his chronic pain and being out of work. The physical stimulus or triggering event was the work-related activity- ie, lifting boxes- causing the mental disorder.

On the other hand, if a Claimant suffers from stress at work, not because of a physical injury or event, but due to ridicule from a co-worker or supervisor, the mental-mental analysis will apply and the abnormal working conditions element must be met.

New Ent. St. L. v. WCAB – The Case Background

In the New Enterprise Stone & Lime case, the injured worker/Claimant was driving on a highway when another vehicle veered right into him. The driver was on a suicide mission and had his face pressed up against the windshield and looking at Claimant when they collided. The driver died upon impact and Claimant, after the head on collision, veered down an embankment and into some trees. He exited his truck when bystanders were yelling to get out since it may catch on fire. Claimant injured his chest and wrist but his significant injury was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder- due to nightmares from the accident, fear, etc.

Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging PTSD from the June 2009 accident. Hearings were held and evidence presented. The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded benefits finding Claimant proved the physical-mental elements. Employer appealed, asserting that the Court erred by applying the physical-mental analysis rather than the mental-mental. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the WCJ’s Decision.

The Physical Stimulus To Support A Workers’ Compensation Award

The Commonwealth Court also affirmed, finding that the physical stimulus was the collision causing the death of the other driver before Claimant’s eyes and disabling his loaded tractor-trailer causing it to descend an embankment. Claimant’s “intimate involvement in the fatal accident is sufficient to constitute a ‘physical stimulus’ to support a compensation award”, the Court ruled.

Note that there is a third category for psychological injuries under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law– mental-physical. This applies where a psychological stimulus causes physical injury. An example of this would be if a Claimant was subjected to repeated crude, sexual comments by a co-worker causing ulcers and migraines from the mental stress.

The Mental-Mental Case – Payes v. WCAB

In Payes v. WCAB, decided October 30,2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the Commonwealth Court erred by not accepting the well-supported facts by the Workers’ Compensation Judge establishing the existence of an extraordinarily unusual and distressing single work-related event experienced by Appellant (injured worker) resulting in his disabling mental condition, where such single and comprehensive work-related event constituted an abnormal working condition as a matter of law.

In cases like these, which we call “mental-mental”, where a mental stimulus causes a mental injury, an injured worker must prove abnormal working conditions under Pennsylvania Workers Comp Law.

The factual predicate of this case is rather simple, but not common. The Claimant was a trooper with the Pennsylvania State Police and worked as such for about 12 years before the incident which happened on November 29, 2006. On that date, he was driving his patrol car at 545am, while it was dark, when a woman dressed in all black, including a black cap, suddenly ran in front of and was struck by his car. She flipped over the vehicle and landed on the highway. He immediately got out of his car to attend to her, as she was bleeding from the mouth. As he was trying to revive her, he also had to try to divert oncoming traffic from hitting himself and the victim. The incident was caught on film by a camera mounted on his patrol car. Other troopers arrived, but she was pronounced dead at the scene.

Later, it was discovered that she suffered from mental illness. The trooper was transported to a hospital for testing as he was exposed to her blood. He returned to work in early January, 2007 but after four days, his feelings of anxiousness and stress led him to believe he could not continue to perform his job as a state trooper.

The Burden of Proof In A Mental Injury Under The PA Work Comp Act

Claimant filed a Claim Petition alleging Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. After hearings and presentation of testimony, including expert psychiatric testimony, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found him credible and his medical expert. The WCJ found Claimant had met his burden of proving a mental injury arising from a work-related mental stimulus and while state troopers may expect to encounter or be involved with violent situations, that this particular work-related stimulus was not one normally encountered by or expect of state troopers- and therefore, that Claimant met his burden of showing abnormal working conditions- which is required for mental-mental cases.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed the WCJ’s ruling finding that this incident did not constitute abnormal working conditions given the nature of Claimant’s “stressful and perilous profession”.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Verdict on Mental-Mental Case

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the WCAB’s Decision holding as a matter of law that Claimant’s injury did not result from an abnormal working condition, citing in part the notion that in the line of a police officer, Claimant can be expected to be witness to horrible tragedy. The Commonwealth Court broke down each part of the accident and post-accident events, claiming each sequence was not extraordinary for that type of work.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 22-page Decision, held that the Commonwealth Court erred by not accepting the well-supported facts found by the WCJ which established the existence of an extraordinarily unusual and depressing single work-related event experienced by Claimant resulting in his disabling mental condition. The Court first reviewed the standard on appeal- that is, that the Court must affirm the adjudication below unless it finds that an error of law was committed, that constitutional rights were violated, that a practice or procedure of a Commonwealth agency was not followed or that any necessary finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence of record. It then discussed the abnormal working condition precedent, emphasizing just how “highly fact sensitive” the exercise is. In classifying what is “abnormal”, the Court recognized that there is no bright line test or a generalized standard. Instead, we must consider the specific work environment of the claimant. The Court then analyzed specific cases involving abnormal working conditions and police officers.

The ‘Normal’ Working Conditions For a Police Officer

Most importantly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seized on one of the WCJ’s Findings- specifically number 13 wherein the WCJ concluded that State Troopers are not in their normal course of their duties when exposed to what occurred in this case- a mentally disturbed person running in front of Claimant’s vehicle for no apparent reason. Likewise, what the Claimant had to deal with in the aftermath was not something that normally occurs for State Troopers. This Finding, said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, was not found to be unsupported by the evidence, nor was it arbitrary and capricious such that it could be set aside. The Commonwealth Court, reformulated Finding 13 of the WCJ, into unrelated component parts, where each part standing alone, might be safely determined to be a “normal” working condition for a police officer.

But because the injury arose from a single incident, the inquiry must rest on whether that single incident alone, and not any purportedly comparable sets of incidents, was abnormal. Finding 13 by the WCJ, which was not disturbed on appeal, found that the incident was not one to which state troopers are normally exposed. The Court found that the record supported this Finding.

This is a great decision for injured workers in Pennsylvania. It shows that you cannot assume that because a person is in a rough and tumble type of job, that the person is never going to experience anything unusual. Even a State Trooper can be confronted with highly unusual or “abnormal” working conditions which results in significant psychological injury. The Decision also reminds us to really examine the Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Findings, because if they are supported by the record, and not disturbed on appeal, they govern.

Cardamone Law – Hire Professional Psychological Injuries Lawyer!

If you want more information about psychological injuries and the standards of proof under the PA Work Comp Law, call or email Philadelphia Workers’ Comp Lawyer Michael W. Cardamone at (267) 651-7945 or Michael@Cardamonelaw.com for a free analysis of your case.

For more information about Pennsylvania Work Comp, call Cardamone Law 7 days a week at (267) 651-7945.