Does workers' comp cover serious mental stress in Washington?
The claim was initially denied on the basis that the worker's condition was not the result of an industrial injury or occupational disease.
Despite testimony that workplace conditions contributed to “psychological and psychological changes” to the plaintiff’s brain function, the Court of Appeals of Washington has upheld previous rulings in favor of an employer whose employee suffered serious mental stress due to the actions of a co-worker.
Julie Cook-Crist worked as an administrative assistant at a company called Network Communications, Inc. (NCI) from 2007 to 2010. Beginning in 2008, a co-worker, Andrea North, began to routinely scream, use profanity and lash out at Cook-Crist without any provocation. North would frequently engage in aggressive behavior including slamming doors and stomping around the office. Cook-Crist began to dread interactions with North and was in constant fear of the next outburst, likening the relationship to a domestic abuse situation. Cook-Crist attempted to address the situation with North directly but was unsuccessful, so she sought assistance from her supervisor, Terry Fritz. Fritz failed to adequately address the concerns.
Cook-Crist claimed to be constantly anxious and afraid that she would be fired from her job, which she otherwise enjoyed. According to the opinion, “[s]he felt trapped in ‘fight or flight’ mode, was on constant alert and was very upset nearly all the time.”
In March 2010, Cook-Crist felt that her ability to function was declining at a severe rate, made an appointment with her doctor and contacted her employer’s human resources department. She was placed on immediate medical leave by her doctor on March 15, 2010, and her work with NCI was terminated two days later. She has not worked since.
In June 2013, Cook-Crist filed for workers’ compensation benefits resulting from “work conditions/environment that included repeated exposure to psychological abuse due to continual workplace violence.” The application had depression with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) listed as her diagnoses.
The claim was denied by the Department of Labor and Industries Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals on the basis that her condition was not the result of an industrial injury and was not an occupational disease within the scope of RCW 51.08.140. Cook-Crist appealed to the board and brought her therapist and a psychologist who indicated that workplace stress caused a “disabling worsening” of her OCD symptoms and stressor-related disorder. Two other doctors also testified, indicating that the workplace trauma the employee suffered contributed to psychological and psychological changes in her brain function.
The employer argued that even if Cook-Crist’s evidence were accepted as true, she failed to present a prima claim for relief as a matter of law because mental health conditions caused by workplace stress are excluded from coverage as occupational diseases under RCW 51.08.142 and WAC 296-14-300, where it states “claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall within the definition of an occupational disease.” However, a mental health condition may qualify for coverage as an industrial injury “if the condition resulted from a sudden, tangible, and traumatic event.” The board upheld the prior decision and rejected the claim. The assistant appealed to the court, where her claim again failed, so she appealed to the next level.
In the opinion, the court wrote that “[m]ental health conditions caused by workplace stress are exempt from coverage as occupational diseases under the Industrial Insurance Act. The court noted that Cook-Crist claimed that her conditions were caused by the “extreme” interpersonal conflict that she experienced with the co-worker, her supervisor’s failure to address her concerns and fear that the situation would cause her to lose her job, so Cook-Crist alleged a mental health condition excluded from coverage by Washington law.
The court cited a prior case in which a claim involving post-traumatic stress disorder was denied. In the case, the court held that a series of incidents over a few days failed to fit the definition of “occupational disease” because the ensuing PTSD did not result from a “single sudden traumatic event.”
The court also noted that the psychological changes Cook-Crist suffered did not change the nature of her diagnosis.
Editor’s Note: While we agree that the claim did not meet the state’s definition of occupational disease, we feel very sorry for the plaintiff. We believe this is an indication that some states, including Washington, should seriously look at reforming workers’ compensation statutes to include psychological damages suffered as the country moves toward a more mental-health-friendly stance.
Related: