Claimant for Workers' Compensation benefits appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's [Board] decision disallowing Claimant's request to amend his earlier established claim to include consequential injuries.
Claimant had established a claim for workers' compensation benefits based upon an exacerbation of a preexisting chemical sensitivity and Claimant's employer reassigned Claimant to work at a different location. Subsequently, Claimant's treating physician advised Claimant's employer that Claimant's reassignment to the new location had resulted in "a complete resolution" of Claimant's symptoms and requested that the reassignment be made permanent. Claimant continued to work at the new location until January 2020 when he took a leave of absence to care for his ailing mother and commenced working from home.
Claimant subsequently complained of certain mental health difficulties to his treating physician, asserting that, while working from home while on leave, he was harassed by his supervisor concerning his work. Claimant's physician diagnosed Claimant with a number of psychological conditions related to those complaints and Claimant then sought to amend his established chemical sensitivity claim claim "to include anxiety, depressed mood, major depressive disorder and insomnia as consequential injuries".
A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] found that Claimant had not demonstrated that his psychological injuries were a direct or natural consequence of his initial chemical related injury and disallowed the claim for "consequential injuries". The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's findings, and Claimant appealed the Board ruling.
The Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination, noting:
1. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Claimant's alleged psychological injuries did not result from a fear of being assigned to work at his original location;
2. Claimant "has not demonstrated that the asserted psychological injuries resulted directly and naturally from his prior chemical insensitivity disability so as to establish a consequential injury"; and
3. Claimant's allegations with respect to harassment, "were too remote to establish a causal nexus to the prior disability, even if the actions could constitute a separate and distinct claim for work-related stress.
The Appellate Division said its "review of the record as a whole" found no basis to disturb the Board's determination that Claimant failed to demonstrate, "by competent medical evidence, a causal relationship between his established disability and his alleged consequential injuries", and held that the Board's decision to reject Claimant's alleged consequential injuries was supported by substantial evidence.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.