- Causation (thin skull doctrine)
- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Statutory interpretation (principles of)
- Preexisting condition (psychological condition)
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
The worker sought entitlement for a mental stress condition, in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The claimed date of onset of the worker's mental stress condition was October 16, 2018. On this date, a child started to behave inappropriately in the worker's classroom, including having physical outbursts. The worker was punched and kicked by the child, and stabbed in the leg with a pencil. Entitlement under the Board's policy on Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) was denied on the basis that the incident of October 16, 2018 was not objectively traumatic.
The appeal was allowed. The Panel found that the incident that the worker was involved in on October 16, 2018 arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment and worsened her pre-existing psychological difficulties. OPM Document No. 15-03-02 requires that an event that precipitates an injury be "objectively traumatic" and sets out examples. Consistent with a number of other Tribunal decisions that have considered entitlement to TMS, the Panel found that injuring events are not required to be similar in nature to the events listed in OPM Document No. 15-03-02, in order to be considered "objectively traumatic".The Panel found that the incident that the worker experienced was objectively traumatic, despite the fact that the incident was not similar in nature to the examples provided in OPM Document No. 15-03-02. There was an element of concern by the worker for her own personal safety, but also a significant concern for the children under her care, which the worker was responsible for protecting. The incident was followed by the worker's immediate breakdown and very prompt health care being received and acceptance by the health care providers that the incident caused the breakdown. These circumstances demonstrated the objectively traumatic nature of the event that the worker experienced. The worker was diagnosed with PTSD, which met the diagnostic requirements set out in OPM Document No. 15-03-02.The Panel preferred the definition of what it means for an incident to be considered "objectively traumatic" in line with prior Tribunal decisions that require an event to be considered traumatic by a neutral observer and not just by the worker (see Decision No. 509/07). Using the language of Board policy and Decision No. 2185/11, it is a requirement for entitlement to traumatic mental stress that an event "is generally accepted as being traumatic." There is, however, no requirement in section 13 of the WSIA or in OPM Document No. 15-03-02 that the mental stress must be analogous to the types of examples of traumatic mental stress incidents found in OPM Document No. 15-03-02.Given that the worker's job was to maintain a safe learning environment for the children under her care, the Panel found that the events of October 16, 2018 represented a very significant concern that potentially endangered the children under her care, and for which she potentially stood to be held responsible. This qualified as being objectively traumatic, even aside from the threat the events posed to her personal security. The Panel concluded that the worker had entitlement for a mental stress injury under section 13 of the WSIA and the Board's policy on TMS.