You Determine: Can Work-Induced Stress Give Rise to a Staff’ Compensation Declare?

The end of this article asks a quiz question. See the correct answer in the drop-down menu at the bottom of the page.

Work can be stressful for many different reasons. Common stressors include a difficult boss, an uncomfortable colleague, and excessive workload. A 2018 survey of around 2,000 professionals found that 76 percent of respondents said that stress in the workplace had a negative impact on their private life. Of those surveyed, 65 percent said they lost sleep due to stress at work, and 16 percent said they quit their job because of stress.

Stress is an everyday issue, but under what circumstances can work-related stress lead to a compensation claim? A new case in Washington State dealt with this very issue. See Cook-Crist v. Department of Labor & Industries, No. 81325-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. June 1, 2021, unpublished).

In Cook, the plaintiff reported that a colleague routinely yelled, used profanity, and hit her without provocation. She went on to claim that her colleague stomped around the office and slammed doors.

The complainant tried to solve the problem directly with his colleague and also sought help from a supervisor in vain. She reported that she felt “trapped”, “very angry most of the time,” as if she was in a constant state of “fight or flight,” and that her ability to function was deteriorating. She then sought medical treatment and was given leave by her doctor. Just two days later, the plaintiff’s employer terminated her employment.

The plaintiff then sought compensation for workers claiming she suffered from depression with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder due to “work conditions / environments repeatedly exposed to psychological abuse due to persistent workplace violence”.

The lawsuit was initially rejected by the Washington Department of Labor and Industry on the grounds that it was neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Board of Examiners, where she submitted evidence from both her therapist and psychologist to suggest that workplace stress caused a “disabling deterioration” in her OCD and stress-related disorder. Two other doctors testified at the hearing that the alleged workplace trauma contributed to psychological and physiological changes in the plaintiff’s brain function. Notwithstanding this, the Examination Board upheld the Labor Department’s refusal to provide benefits, claiming that the plaintiff’s condition was excluded from workers’ compensation insurance.

The plaintiff appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals. The court found that under Washington law, “Claims based on mental conditions or mental disabilities caused by stress do not fall under the definition of an occupational disease.” The court found that a mental condition can be classified as an accident at work “if the condition results from a sudden, tangible and traumatic event”. Based on the above standard, the court found that the plaintiff’s claim for stress in the workplace was expressly excluded from cover for occupational diseases. In addition, since the alleged injury was based on a series of events rather than a single traumatic event, the condition was not eligible for compensation as an occupational accident. As a result, the court upheld the decision to deny workers compensation from the plaintiff.

The law in Michigan

We recently wrote an article on work-related suicide claims. In this article, which can be found here, we discuss the legal standard that applies in cases of mental injury. The same standard is relevant here.

In order to demonstrate that the work has resulted in a compensatory psychological / psychological injury, an applicant must demonstrate that they have developed a work-related intellectual disability as defined in MCL 418.301 (2) and MCL 418.401 (2) (b). These legal provisions are almost identical and provide that an intellectual disability is eligible if:

(1) the intellectual disability of the plaintiff is due to actual employment events,

(2) the perception of events by the workers is not unfounded and based on reality, and

(3) The work has contributed significantly to intellectual disability.

See Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732 (2002). In determining whether the work has contributed significantly to intellectual disability, the judge must compare the factors of employment and non-employment and weigh their respective contributions to the applicant’s overall mental health. See Gardner v Van Buren Pub Sch, 445 Mich 23 (1994).

How do you think the Cook case would have turned out if it had occurred in Michigan?

Recall that the Washington Court of Appeals relied on the fact that under Washington law:

(1) Claims from work-related stress are expressly excluded from occupational disease cover and

(2) Mental illnesses can only be classified as an occupational accident if they can be traced back to a “sudden, tangible and traumatic event”.

Conversely, Michigan law would require plaintiff in the Cook case to demonstrate that she had an intellectual disability as a result of actual employment. She must also prove that her perception of these actual events was not unfounded and based on reality. Finally, she has to show that the accidents at work contributed significantly to her mental disability compared to other stressors or conditions.

Here’s what we know:

• The plaintiff stated that she had been yelled at repeatedly by another employee. The clerk used profanity, stomping around the office and slamming doors.
• The plaintiff reported her colleague to a supervisor, but felt “trapped” and “very angry almost the whole time”.
• The plaintiff stated that her ability to work had deteriorated as a result of the alleged treatment.
• The plaintiff sought medical treatment and was eventually given leave.
• During the trial, a statement was made to the plaintiff’s therapist and psychologist that stress at work caused a “disabling deterioration” in the plaintiff’s obsessive-compulsive disorder and its stress-related disorder.