- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Loss of earnings {LOE} (termination of employment)
- Presumptions (first responder)
The worker was employed as a paramedic with the employer since 2005. In February 2020 the worker reported cumulative mental stress due to his job. The employer raised concerns about the claim since the worker's conduct had been investigated starting in December 2019. The worker was terminated on March 18, 2020. The employer appealed the decision to allow initial entitlement to benefits for PTSD. The worker appealed the decision to deny Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from February 13, 2020.
The worker's appeal was allowed. The employer's appeal was denied.Policy 15-03-13 states that the presumption (that the worker's PTSD developed due to workplace exposures) may be rebutted if it is established that the employment was not a significant contributing factor in causing the first responder's PTSD.The Panel acknowledged that the employer's investigation of the worker's conduct caused the worker a degree of stress, however, the evidence did not support that the investigation and termination were the cause of the worker's PTSD. As such, the presumption in the PTSD Policy had not been rebutted. The medical reporting did not support that the employment-related stressors overwhelmed the significance of the paramedic work exposures in the development of the worker's psychological condition. The worker was entitled to LOE benefits from February 13, 2020. The worker stopped working due to his PTSD almost a month before his termination on March 17, 2020. The evidence supported that he was not able to work as a result of his work-related psychological symptoms. The worker's loss of earnings from February 13, 2020 was "as a result of" the injury under section 43 of the WSIA. After the termination, the work injury continued to make a significant contribution to the worker's ongoing loss of earnings.As outlined in Decision No. 904/14, the worker will have introduced an intervening event negating the significance of the compensable injury if the worker's conduct prior to the termination of employment was such that he or she should be held responsible for the loss of the employment opportunity. The Panel did not accept that the worker should be held responsible for the loss of the employment opportunity. It did not appear the worker's termination was the result of the investigation specifically. Also, the employer did not follow their own process with respect to completing their investigation of the worker, including that once the worker was "cleared" to return to work, the worker would meet with the deputy chief so the investigation could be completed into the allegations against the worker. The worker had a medically supported absence and there was no evidence to support that the worker would not have participated in the investigation after he was able to return to work.