- Preexisting condition (psychological condition)
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
The worker claimed entitlement to benefits for traumatic mental stress (TMS) resulting from an incident in the workplace on July 19, 2021. She claimed that while working as a field technician for the telecommunications company accident employer, there was an incident with a potential customer in which she was verbally assaulted.
The Panel allowed the appeal.Pursuant to OPM Document No. 15-03-02, in order to establish entitlement for TMS, a worker must be exposed to one or more objectively traumatic and identifiable events in the workplace which result in a mental stress condition that is diagnosed by a qualified medical professional. The worker was exposed to an objectively traumatic and identifiable event on July 19, 2021. This exposure caused the worker to develop symptoms that her treating doctors documented and diagnosed as anxiety and depression under the DSM-5.The Panel adopted the approach of Decision No. 921/21, specifically, that the test is whether the incident was objectively traumatic to a reasonable observer, who knows of all relevant context. In this case, this was a woman on her own in a remote area with an angry stranger accelerating towards her on an ATV. The individual was yelling and swearing with no apparent reason for not wanting her to be on the property, given the confirmation of permission by the property owner she received from her employer. The Panel found that a vehicle that is accelerating towards a person operated by an angry person, has the potential to be a weapon, and would be perceived as such by a reasonable observer. The Panel concluded that, when all circumstances are considered, a reasonable person would see this incident as objectively traumatic.The worker's diagnosed mental stress condition resulted from this incident with the property owner's son on July 19, 2021, an incident which was objectively traumatic. The TMS policy criteria were met and, in turn, the worker had entitlement to benefits under this policy. The Panel accepted that the worker's mental stress injury was an exacerbation of her psychological condition that predated the work incident.