Decision Search Results
Searching, please wait...
| Decision No. 1932 09 | 15-Dec-2009 | J. Moore - E. Tracey - J. Crocker |
| The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for traumatic mental stress. The worker was a dispatcher for a police department. On February 10, 2007, a co-worker took a call from a person who was wanted by the police and wanted to turn himself in. The co-worker initiated a possible pick-up of the caller by a patrol car. Fifteen minutes later, the caller called again, this time speaking to the worker. The caller stated that he had not been picked up by a patrol car but still wanted to turn himself in. The caller said he would go to the nearest police station himself. The caller did not, in fact, turn himself in. One week later, he killed two men during an altercation. The worker was unaware that the killer was the caller to whom she had spoken until, on March 1, 2007, she was approached by a senior officer and informed that an investigation was being initiated regarding the call she took on February 10. After an internal investigation that lasted several months, the worker was exonerated. Board policy provides that a worker is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress that is an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event. A claimed traumatic event must be clearly and precisely identifiable, objectively traumatic and unexpected in the normal of the worker’s employment. The worker suffered a psychological reaction after March 1. The Panel was satisfied that what transpired on March 1 was a sudden and unexpected event that caused the worker to believe that her actions two weeks earlier had led to the deaths of two men. The triggering event was the implicit blame for the deaths of the two men. This was a clear and precisely identifiable event. The event was outside the normal course of employment and was objectively traumatic and unexpected. Further, the mental stress was not related to an employment decision to investigate the worker’s actions. Rather, its was the implication of the decision to investigate, that her actions may have led to the deaths of the two men, whether or not she had complied with protocol when taking the call. The worker had entitlement for traumatic mental stress. The appeal was allowed. |
| View Full Decision Text 12 Page(s) |
| References: | Act Citation Other Case Reference |
| Neutral Citation: | 2009 ONWSIAT 2891 |
