Tags:
Categories:
Dec 7, 2021

PA Police Officer Awarded Benefits for PTSD After “No-Holds-Barred” Meeting

In an unreported opinion, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed an award of total disability benefits to former police officer for a psychological injury in the form of PTDS, depression, and anxiety, resulting from an abnormal working condition at her police station [City of Harrisburg v. Shuff, 2021 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 605 (Dec. 3, 2021)]. Acknowledging that the claimant was required to show that the mental injury she suffered was something other than a subjective reaction to normal working conditions, the court said it could not conclude that the WCJ erred in finding that the scheduling of a “no-holds-barred” meeting with the claimant, other officers in the claimant’s platoon, and claimant’s supervisors, to discuss the officers’ dissatisfaction with the claimant’s work was an extraordinary and unusual event. The WCJ found that the “meeting” digressed into an abusive, vulgar shouting session. The appellate court said that the WCJ’s finding that the meeting was extraordinary was buttressed by evidence that the police captain did not find out about the “meeting” until after it had occurred.

Background

Claimant began working for the employer as a police officer in January 2010. On January 6, 2016, she filed a claim petition alleging that she had sustained a psychological injury based on two incidents that occurred in the course and scope of her employment. Both incidents involved Claimant’s failure to use a taser on alleged perpetrators. Following the second incident, a meeting was held with Claimant, other officers in Claimant’s platoon, and Claimant’s supervisors. As noted above, the meeting was described as a “no-holds-barred” session at which the other officers yelled at, swore, and berated Claimant. At this meeting, Testimony indicated that one officer told Claimant that officers who go outside their platoon, “don’t stick around for long.” Another allegedly said that Claimant was a “fxxking liability” and that 85 percent of her shift didn’t want to work with her.

Thereafter, Claimant was placed on administrative duty and attended a fitness for duty evaluation, where she was evaluated by the employer’s physician, who indicated Claimant was not fit for duty as a police officer. Following the evaluation, the police chief informed Claimant there were no work activities available for her. She ceased work as of February 3, 2016, and has not returned to work since that date.

WCJ’s Decision

Following hearings, the WCJ issued a decision finding that Claimant suffered a work-related mental injury in the form of PTSD, depression, and anxiety as a result of the two failure to tase incidents, which culminated in the no-holds-barred meeting. Specifically, the WCJ determined that the no-holds-barred meeting where Claimant was yelled at by her coworkers constituted an abnormal working condition under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Board issued an opinion and order remanding the case to the WCJ to make additional credibility determinations, in particular, as to the testimony of the employer’s fact witnesses (an officer, a sergeant, and Claimant’s captain). By decision dated December 12, 2019, the WCJ made specific credibility findings as to those witnesses, again granting Claimant’s claim petition. The WCJ ordered the employer to continue payment of Claimant’s ongoing total disability benefits and medical costs. The Board affirmed, and the employer petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review.

Commonwealth Court’s Decision

The court reviewed a number of Pennsylvania decisions, including Payes v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Pennsylvania State Police), 621 Pa. 564, 79 A.3d 543 (Pa. 2013), in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a state police trooper sustained his burden of proving that an abnormal working condition existed and that he was entitled to benefits for a mental-mental injury when he accidentally struck and killed a pedestrian with his police car, attempted to revive her, and attempted to divert traffic from hitting him and the pedestrian.

The Commonwealth Court noted that in Young v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (New Sewickley Police Dept.), 737 A.2d 317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), the court held that a police officer was not subjected to abnormal working conditions and could not recover for a mental-mental injury when he served an arrest warrant in a domestic violence case, the subject threatened the claimant and himself with a gun, but was later subdued and taken into custody. There the Court held that the claimant failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the “stand-off event was an abnormal working condition for a police officer, where certain stressful and even life-threatening events and occurrences are expected” due to the nature of the employment.

Here, the court stressed that it could not conclude that the WCJ erred in finding the scheduling of a “no-holds-barred” meeting under these circumstances, was an extraordinary and unusual event and it constituted an abnormal working condition. The meeting was the last of a series of events that created a psychiatric/psychological injury to the claimant. The WCJ found Claimant credible when she testified that she had never heard about a no-holds-barred meeting being held before, and that such meetings were not a part of police procedure. One of the other officers admitted that no-holds-barred meetings did not occur regularly and that the meeting was unusual. In the memorandum prepared following the meeting, the sergeant stated that other officers commented “this was the first time that something like this (room discussion) has ever taken place,” thus admitting the meeting was unusual. These facts, found by the WCJ and supported by the record, supported the WCJ’s legal conclusion that under Payes, the meeting was an abnormal working condition, even for a police officer whose employment required her to work in a very stressful environment.