Unusual “Event” Versus Unusual “Stress”: AZ Court Says Commission Should Reconsider Deputy Sheriff’s PTSD Claim

Construing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1043.01(B), which denies coverage for mental injuries, such as PTSD, unless some “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress related to the employment … was a substantial contributing cause of the mental injury, illness or condition,” an Arizona appellate court yesterday set aside a decision of the state’s Industrial Commission denying a deputy sheriff’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits due to his admitted PTSD condition [France v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 2020 Ariz. App. LEXIS 171 (Feb. 18, 2020)]. The court stressed that the ALJ and the Commission had improperly concentrated on the unusual nature of the “event,” when they should have made their findings based upon the unusual nature of the “stress.”

Background

In June 2017, deputy sheriff. John France, and another deputy were dispatched to a residence to investigate a person threatening to kill himself with a shotgun. After they arrived, France was assaulted by the manic gunman, who, screaming in rage, aimed a shotgun at France’s chest and face from close range before the gunman was shot and killed by France and the other deputy. In mid-2017, France was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the trauma. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation. The Sheriff’s Office (“the employer”) conceded that France suffers from PTSD caused by work-related stress but disagreed that the injury arose out of “some unexpected, unusual, or extraordinary stress related to the employment,” as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1043.01(B).

ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ found that France was exposed to the “same stress that any other Gila County Sheriff’s Deputy would have faced under the same circumstances, and therefore [France’s] job-related stress was not unusual, unexpected or extraordinary.” The ALJ noted that, although France presented expert medical testimony that the incident “was psychologically extraordinary,” this “did not mean that it was legally extraordinary.” France appealed.

Mental Injuries Covered Since 1980

The appellate court noted that in Arizona mental injuries had been covered (under appropriate conditions) since 1980, when Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1043.01(B). As pertinent to the case, the statute provided as follows:

A mental injury, illness or condition shall not be considered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable … unless some unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress related to the employment … was a substantial contributing cause of the mental injury, illness or condition.”

The court indicated that while the ALJ’s factual findings were reviewed for an abuse of discretion, the scope and application of § 23-1043.01(B) presented legal questions subject to de novo review. The court added that prior cases addressing mental injuries, at least at first blush, seemed to suggest that a claimant seeking compensation for a work-related emotional injury must prove the injury-causing event was not contemplated as part of his or her job responsibilities.

Important Distinction Between “Event” and “Stress”

The court stressed that the issue to be resolved was not whether the event itself was “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary,” but whether the stress France was exposed to as a result of his employment was “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary.” Parsing its words carefully, the court acknowledged that it was events, of course, that created stress, but the distinction, however subtle, had meaning. The court continued:

An event — such as the dispatch of a law enforcement officer to investigate a report of threatened violence — may be routine. The stress of the event — which here included staring down the barrel of a loaded shotgun held by a screaming manic gunman, careful repositioning to avoid injury to a fellow officer, and shooting and killing another human being at point-blank range — may not be. Yet, the ALJ’s findings regarding France’s training and job duties indicate it focused upon the nature of the event, rather than the nature of the stress [Opinion, ¶13].

That was error, said the court. Moreover, the court said the ALJ conflated the terms “unexpected,” “extraordinary,” and “unusual,” rendering the terms redundant. The court reasoned that the legislature’s decision to use these words suggested it understood there to be a difference between the three. The court added:

The phrase “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary stress related to the employment” must be read as a whole and in a more general sense to mean, simply, that the injury-inducing stress imposed upon the claimant by virtue of his employment was sufficiently significant and noteworthy to differentiate it from the daily wear and tear of living [Opinion, ¶15].

The court went on to say that it was not suggesting that every situation in which a law enforcement officer drew a weapon or used deadly force would result in a compensable claim. Nevertheless, here, the Commission’s decision must be set aside.