Safety and OSHA News

In this week's e-newsletter

Employee witnesses a death: Is his PTSD covered by workers’ comp?

by June 17, 2013 7 Comments

A truck driver witnessed a fatal crash on the job. Should workers’ comp cover his treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?

Shaun Armstrong was driving a one-ton dump truck for the John R. Jurgensen Co. While stopped at a yield sign on an access ramp to I-70 in Ohio, a vehicle crashed into the back of his truck. The other vehicle ended up “basically underneath” the dump truck.

Armstrong got out of his truck, fearing that a fuel leak might erupt into flames. He noticed the other driver with his head slumped down and blood coming out of his nose. Armstrong was taken to a local emergency room for treatment. While he was in the ER, he heard that the other driver had died. Armstrong was treated and released.

The truck driver filed a workers’ comp claim for treatment of neck and back strain. Later, he requested additional workers’ comp benefits for PTSD.

The Ohio Industrial Commission officer allowed the claim for PTSD, finding it compensable because it was causally related to his workplace injury. The entire Commission let the hearing officer’s decision stand. The company took its case to a state court of common pleas.

In that trial, both sides agreed Armstrong suffered from PTSD. The only question was whether workers’ comp should cover his expenses for the condition.

Armstrong and Jurgensen both presented testimony from doctors.

Armstrong’s doctor said the truck driver developed PTSD as a result of the crash and that his physical injuries contributed to and were causal factors.

Jurgensen’s doctor agreed that Armstrong suffered from PTSD as a result of the crash, but he added that physical injuries didn’t cause the psychological condition. Instead, the PTSD was caused by witnessing the crash and death of the other motorist. The doctor said, even if Armstrong had received no physical injuries, he still might have suffered from PTSD because of witnessing the death of the other motorist.

The trial court sided with the company. It said Armstrong’s PTSD wasn’t compensable under workers’ comp because it didn’t arise from his physical injuries. A state court of appeals agreed with the decision.

Armstrong appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Link between physical and psychiatric injuries

The supreme court said the case boiled down to this question: Does Ohio law limit workers’ comp coverage to those psychiatric conditions caused by the employee’s physical injury?

The court relied upon the language in Ohio’s workers’ comp law to find the answer. The law says psychiatric conditions are excluded from the general definition of injury “except where the claimant’s psychiatric conditions have arisen from an injury or occupational disease sustained by that claimant.”

The record contained contradictory testimony on whether Armstrong’s injuries were a contributing cause of his PTSD. Armstrong’s doctor said the physical injuries did cause his PTSD. A doctor for the company had the opposite opinion. The trial court, after hearing all the evidence, found the company’s doctor to be more credible.

For that reason, the Ohio Supreme Court allowed the lower court’s decision to stand. Armstrong could not receive additional workers’ comp benefits to treat his PTSD.

Two judges on the state’s highest court disagreed with the majority and wrote dissenting opinions.

One judge wrote:

“This case presents a perfect opportunity to right a wrong in the area of workers’ compensation law … it is wholly irrelevant whether the psychological condition arose from the accident or from the trauma and drama … Either way he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. It is that simple.”

Whether PTSD is covered under workers’ comp has also come up in a different type of case: those involving law enforcement or first responders who are not physically injured at all but witness the horrors of a vicious attack or mass shooting. Some state legislatures are taking up the question of whether their workers’ comp laws should be changed to allow coverage for law enforcement or emergency responders who develop PTSD from conducting part of their jobs.

What do you think about the court’s decision? When should workers’ comp cover PTSD? Let us know in the comments below.

(Armstrong v. Jurgensen Co., Ohio Supreme Court, No. 2012-0244, 6/4/13)

Categories: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries & Fatalities, Special Report, Workers' Compensation
Tags: , , ,

Other Posts You Might Like

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest safety news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • toby

    I agree with the courts.

  • cdc

    No, a person that makes a career decision of being a first responder does so knowing that its part of the job. No different than a person working at a veterinarian’s office, knowing they have allergies should not make a WC claim because of symptoms of their allergies. WC is already on a sippery slope that has court interpretations broadening the intent faster than Carl Lewis runs the 100. We surely don’t need state legislators putting WC on steroids. More and more people are working hard at getting their early retirement via WC, it’s going to be a real problem if we don’t put brakes on the slide.

  • catch22

    Agree with the courts. A sad case, but nothing in the writing indicates this would have been any different than if he was driving his own vehicle and was a part of a crash that took someone’s life. 32,800 people died in traffic accidents in 2010. I would surmize that a number of those were observed by another person. Other than driving while on business, I don’t see any issue in this case that was something related to the job.

  • MikeUSW

    The military provides treatment for post-traumatic stress disorders. It is shameful that some police, fire and EMT organizations do not, and even more shameful when it’s not even covered by workers comp. It’s also stupid. Do we really want armed police officers with untreated psychiatric illnesses? As to it being “part of the job,” (toby’s comment above), so is getting shot if you’re a police officer. Do we deny WC coverage to cops who get shot? And as to the idea that psychological trauma can also result from witnessing a crash off the job (catch22′s comment below), lots of workplace accidents are like accidents that happen off the job. We don’t deny WC to someone who falls off a ladder at work because people also fall off ladders at home. The simple fact is that psychiatric injuries and illnesses are too often seen as different from physical injuries. Happily, the medical profession and laws related to medical care have largely recognized that they are not different. Sadly, WC laws — and judging from the comments, much of the safety and industrial community — have not. Mr. Armstrong suffered a legitimate (and treatable) illness as a result of an incident at work. His brain was injured just as surely as if he had been hit by falling object. In a just society, that should qualify him for workers comp.

    • Safety Barbara

      I was a Compliance Officer for KY OSHA. I was so good at investigating fatalities, that I had as many as three at a time. When I called Employee Assistance, I was told they’d be glad to recommend a therapist. No help from work to process others’ pain — and mine. I switched to the Consultation branch.

  • Lee

    I disagree with the court,the PTSD occurred from the shocked created by the accident while performing a work function. The driver witness the horror that was created while he was performing his regular work function.Additionally his physical bodily injuries could have contributed to the PTSD. He could imagine a worse case of losing his life during the accident. Most importantly the incident occurred on the job and it should be covered under worker comp.

  • IAM 162

    Catch 22…Really? The driver would not have been at the
    accident site if he were not on the job. Great point made by Mike -USW speaking
    to the profession chosen. An average worker may go through their entire career and
    never witness a fatality on the job,
    but when it happens it should be treated. Ever notice that when something bad
    happens at one of our schools, teachers and students are provided counseling
    immediately. Weren’t those teachers on the job? What difference does it make if
    one is a teacher or dump truck driver? They should be treated like any other on
    the job incident. Finally, check out the safety and WC records for John R. Jurgensen Co. No secrets about their position here!