- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
- Stress, mental (chronic)
The worker was employed as a cognitive behaviour consultant in an adolescent in-treatment unit for individuals with intellectual disabilities. During the worker's temporary contract, one of the residents of the building was severely assaulted by the worker's co-worker, who was a regular temporary employee. The worker was not a witness to the traumatic event nor did she have direct firsthand contact with the traumatized individual. The worker claimed that she developed psychological symptoms shortly after the incident which resulted in the worker seeking treatment. The worker was later diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder. The worker appealed the following issues: a) entitlement to benefits under OPM Document No. 15-03-02, "Traumatic Mental Stress"; and b) entitlement to benefits under OPM Document No. 15-03-14, "Chronic Mental Stress."
The Panel allowed the appeal, in part. The worker was entitled to benefits under the TMS policy. Tribunal case law has long held that an individual does not have to witness the traumatic event; but rather, the focus of the analysis is on the work-relatedness of the event in question (see Decision No. 1868/17). According to the Tribunal's Medical Discussion Paper on PTSD, an individual does not need to witness a traumatic event or learn of the event firsthand by a witness or victim to meet the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. Consequently, the diagnostic criteria supports the case law in that a worker does not need to witness the event or have direct contact with an individual who was traumatized in order to develop a psychological response to the event in question. The Panel accepted that the worker had a close connection with the victim. She was his primary worker and worked closely with him for several months prior to the incident. The worker experienced the aftermath of the assault, having arrived to work just hours after the event, experiencing intense police presence and being exposed to the scene of the traumatic event. A work-related nexus had been established between the worker and the traumatic incident. The criteria in the TMS policy were met. The worker was denied entitlement under the CMS policy. With respect to the duties provided in response to the worker's restrictions, the duties provided, or the lack thereof, related to the decisions of the employer as part of the management function and was not demonstrative of workplace harassment. Further to subsection 13(5) and OPM Document No. 15-03-14, workers are not entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress caused by decisions of the employer which are part of the management function. The evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker developed a psychological condition in response to her claim of workplace harassment.