Claimant for Workers' Compensation Benefits, a social worker with child protective services [CPS], was conducting a home visit when the family's dog charged at her, struck her in the chest and knocked her into the side of the house. Claimant, who had been bitten and physically scarred from a dog attack in her youth, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging that she sustained an injury to her chest, was severely traumatized and had not been able to sleep.
CPS, a self-insured employer, accepted the portion of the claim alleging a traumatic injury to the chest. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge subsequently found prima facie medical evidence for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], anxiety and acute stress disorder but noted that claimant had not proffered prima facie medical evidence for a physical injury to her chest. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, among other things, established the claim for work-related psychological injuries consisting of PTSD, anxiety and acute stress disorder, set claimant's average weekly wage and awarded indemnity benefits. CPS employer sought administrative review.
The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] confirmed that portion of the claim alleging a chest injury as the CPS accepted the claim to that extent, but disallowed the claim for work-related psychological injuries involving PTSD, anxiety and acute stress disorder. The Board reasoned that Claimant experiencing a dog jumping on her while performing a home visit did not constitute psychological stress greater than the stress experienced by similarly situated CPS workers. Claimant appealed.
Claimant, contending the Board applied an incorrect standard to her claim alleging direct psychological injuries resulting from physical impact by requiring her to demonstrate that she sustained psychological stress greater than similarly situated CPS workers, appealed the Board's determination.
The Appellate Division agreed with Claimant. "Generally, where a psychological injury is alleged to be caused by work-related stress ... it has long been recognized that where a workplace accident is found to have occurred as a result of a physical impact/trauma, resulting physical and psychological injuries are both compensable, so long as the claimant establishes the causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries."
Here, said the court, the Board established a claim for a physical injury to Claimant's chest based upon the dog jumping on her chest and knocking her into the side of the house. As Claimant alleged that her psychological injuries resulted from that same physical impact that the Board found amounted to a workplace accident, the Appellate Division opined the Board erred by requiring that she establish a separate workplace accident comprised of work-related stress to recover for her alleged direct psychological injuries.
In the words of the court: "upon finding that a workplace accident had been established, the Board's inquiry was limited to whether [Claimant] showed, through competent medical evidence, that there was a causal relation between the accident and the injury. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's ruling and remitted the matter to the Board "to examine whether a causal connection was established between the workplace accident and the alleged psychological injuries consisting of PTSD, anxiety and acute stress disorder."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.