Correctional Officer's PTSD Claim Fails under NY's Objective Standard of Stress
Reiterating New York’s adherence to an objective, rather than a subjective standard with regard to stress-related claims, a state appellate court affirmed a determination by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a correctional officer’s claim for PTSD and other mental injuries caused by threats to the officer’s family made by several inmates at the facility where the officer worked [Matter of Rivenburg v. County of Albany, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5378 (Oct. 1, 2020)]. Holding the stresses described by the claimant officer were no more severe than the stress levels faced by other correction officers performing similar duties in the facility, the appellate court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings.
Background
Claimant, a corrections officer at the Albany County Correctional facility, filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits arising from two incidents in mid-2018. The first, occurring in June, involved a situation in which one of the inmates claimant was supervising began making threatening comments about gang-raping and killing claimant’s college-aged daughter. Other inmates joined in making these remarks. Shortly thereafter, while claimant was assisting other correction officers move the inmate to another cell, the inmate became aggressive toward claimant, necessitating the use of force. Claimant was not physically injured, but found the whole incident to be emotionally upsetting. He continued working thereafter.
In July 2018, claimant got into an argument with another correction officer during which the officer allegedly closed a door in claimant’s face, raised his fist and threatened claimant. Claimant stopped working a few weeks later upon the advice of a physician, who concluded that he was not fit to continue working.
Claimant contended that the incidents caused him mental health injuries, including PTSD, anxiety, insomnia and depression. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier controverted these claims. Ultimately, the WCLJ issued a decision finding no compensable injury and disallowed the claim. A panel of the Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision, and claimant appealed.
Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court initially observed that mental injuries caused by work-related stress are compensable if the claimant can establish that the stress that caused the injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment. The court noted that a superior officer had testified that correction officers had frequent contact with inmates that sometimes involved threats to the officers and their families. The officer also noted that Claimant admitted he had shared some personal information with the inmates who made the threatening comments.
The court stressed that there was no indication that Claimant was under a greater amount of stress than other correction officers performing similar duties in the facility. Given the nature of the work required of correction officers and the character of the individuals under confinement, the stress created by dealing with the inmates was no different for claimant than it was for other correction officers. The court said the inmates who made the threatening comments seized upon an opportunity to intimidate claimant using personal information that he had shared. No proof was presented that the lives of claimant’s daughter and/or wife were actually in jeopardy. Moreover, in spite of the threatening comments, evidence indicated Claimant continued to work his regular shifts, including volunteering for overtime, after the June 2018 incident. Under these circumstances, the court said substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury.