Mental (or “psychic”) illnesses can be just as disabling from work as physical injuries and illnesses. One would think that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which outlaws all forms of disability discrimination, would require that the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act treat all workplace injuries equally, whether they were caused by heavy lifting or emotional stress. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Indeed, although workers disabled from psychic injuries are among the saddest cases that we have to evaluate, psychic injury claims are the most difficult workers’ compensation cases to win. A few recent decisions from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania illustrate which workplace situations are most likely to result in a recognized claim.
In the first case, the injured worker was an office clerk in the maintenance department at USAirways’ Philadelphia International Airport office. The company’s supervisory employees falsely accused the injured worker of committing a wrongful act, intimidated her, threatened to terminate her employment, did terminate employment despite their knowledge that the accusation was false, and then attempted to justify their action, again falsely accusing her leaving work without permission. In addition, the supervisory employees not only used profanity but also physically abused her by pushing and touching her during the interrogation. The worker became upset and ultimately was diagnosed with major depression. In that case, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found that the injured worker was exposed to an “abnormal working condition” and was therefore entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
In the second case, the injured worker was a dispatch operator for a data company. In this case, aside from verbal criticism, abuse and derogatory epithets, the injured worker (a female) was locked in an office by a male supervisor, was identified as the object of the supervisor’s rage in the presence of another employee, was present as the supervisor hurled objects about the room in his rage, including an ashtray, and received threats from the supervisor. The worker had an adverse mental reaction, resulting in a nervous breakdown. Again the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found the injured worker to have been exposed to “abnormal working conditions” and to have a recognized claim.
In the third case, the injured worker was employed as an automotive shop supervisor by the City of Philadelphia. He complained that the City’s fleet manager gave him a stern look and criticized him, yelled at him, screamed at him and cursed at him in front of other workers. Thereafter the worker was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected the injured worker’s argument that he had been subjected to “abnormal work conditions.” The Court specifically said that “pointing out flaws in job performance and reminding an employee of the consequences of unsatisfactory job performance is not only a normal working condition, it is the common language of the workplace, even if it were loud and job threatening...It is permissible criticism in the workplace for which an employee must be emotionally fit to accept when delivered by supervisor. The mere inability to accept criticism does not, therefore, qualify as a compensable psychic injury.”
In the fourth case, the injured worker was a state corrections officer at Western Penitentiary in Pittsburgh. He alleged that he suffered significant stress on the job, including harassment from fellow correctional officers and stress from the inmates, who fought with each other, threatened correction officers and used profanity. The worker developed a major depression and had to go off work. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found there to be no “abnormal working condition” here because “profane language and violence...was an unavoidable job condition for all correctional officers.” What the injured worker here had to prove was that the conditions of his job at Western Penitentiary were unusually stressful when compared to the working conditions of other corrections officers.
It seems to us that there are two important lessons to be learned from these four recent Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decisions. First, a finding of “abnormal working condition” is much more likely in an occupation in a professional office setting than in either an industrial setting or in a service establishment with a high level of stress associated with it. Second, although it might be easier to establish “abnormal working conditions” through a pattern of behavior over a period of time, it is possible to establish such conditions through a single episode if the event involved is intense enough. It must be emphasized, however, that an injured worker does not have to prove “abnormal working conditions” if the work injury is physical only.
