- Causation (thin skull doctrine) (psychotraumatic disability)
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
- Major depressive disorder
The worker was employed as a labourer. On June 11, 2018, the worker was working as part of a crew taking down a large agricultural grain storage bin. The worker and others were working inside the bin while jacks were used to raise the entire bin. At one point, several hydraulic jacks failed. The entire structure dropped three or four feet but remained standing. Neither the worker nor any other workers were hurt. The worker was later diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with anxiety features. The issue under appeal was entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS).
The appeal was allowed. The Board policy on TMS is contained in OPM Document No. 15-03-02. The list of examples given is illustrative but not exhaustive. The test for entitlement must show that: 1) The worker was exposed to an identifiable, objectively traumatic event in the course of employment; 2) The worker suffered a psychological injury that meets the diagnostic requirements of the policy; and, 3) The psychological injury diagnosed was caused by the exposure to the traumatic event. The test for determining whether an event is objectively traumatic is whether the average worker would find the event traumatic. The hypothetical average worker is a worker in the general labour pool, not a worker in the worker's particular job or with their particular training (see Decision No. 177/16).In the Panel's view, the fact that harm did not materialize was not of significant relevance in determining if the event was traumatic. Events that would be reasonably perceived by the average worker to be a threat or danger need not materialize in actual harm or injury to be objectively traumatic. This is confirmed by the fact that the list of examples in the TMS Policy includes a "threat" of violence, not just actual violence. The TMS Administrative Practice Document also makes this point. In the Panel's view, this case was within the category of a traumatic "close call." The worker testified that prior to the incident, he had concerns about the jacks used; however, he felt pressure to proceed with the job nonetheless. This was linked to the worker's feelings of guilt about the incident and the danger it posed to his co-workers. The grain storage bin was also a large structure - more akin to a building than a bin. The worker and his co-workers - for whom he believed he bore some responsibility as lead hand - were inside and outside the bin when it began to collapse. In that moment, the Panel accepted that a normal human reaction would have been instinctive, not calculated. The workers would not have known in that split second that the bin would only fall by one ring and stop. The Panel accepted that in the moment the jacks failed, and the grain bin began to collapse, the average worker would perceive an imminent threat to their own physical safety as well as that of their co-workers. There was an imminent threat of physical harm or even death, with the possibility of being potentially crushed or trapped. The incident was objectively traumatic. The incident was a significant contributing factor leading to the diagnosis of major depression in July 2018.