In Ohio, an injured worker can sustain a compensable psychological injury. However, an Ohio workers’ compensation psychological injury must arise from either an injury or occupational disease. To be compensable, the psychological condition must arise out of a claimant’s physical condition. A psychological injury cannot arise out of a purely mental injury when there was no actual physical harm. There has been a question, though, about psychological injuries that arose contemporaneous with the industrial injury, but not necessarily out of the allowed physical conditions. The recent Supreme Court case of Armstrong v. Jurgensen Company, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-2237, addresses this issue. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a compensable physical injury must be the cause of the psychological injury in order for the later to also be compensable. It is not sufficient for workers’ compensation coverage, if the psychological injury simply occurs simultaneously with the compensable physical injury.
In Armstrong, the injured worker was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating his dump truck. He did sustain a compensable injury in the course and scope of his employment when a vehicle approached him from behind, and struck the back of his dump truck. Quite tragically Mr. Armstrong observed the driver of the other car bleeding and later learned that the driver was deceased. Mr. Armstrong’s claim was allowed for the physical conditions of a cervical strain, thoracic strain, and lumbar strain. He subsequently filed a motion to have his claim amended for the additional condition of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The Industrial Commission of Ohio found in favor of the injured worker concerning the compensability of the PTSD. Jurgensen, the employer, appealed the matter to the Court of Common Pleas. Both sides conducted depositions of the respective witnesses for trial. The expert witness for the employer, Dr. Stoeckel, agreed that Mr. Armstrong suffered from PTSD. Mr. Armstrong presented the expert testimony of Dr. Howard, and like Dr. Stoeckel, he felt that the injured worker also had PTSD. However, and importantly, Dr. Howard testified that the PTSD was caused by witnessing the accident and the fact that it could have been life threatening. The parties proceeded to trial without a jury, and the Judge ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Mr. Armstrong filed an appeal to the Second District Court of Appeals. The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, and Mr. Armstrong appealed the matter to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio was particularly interested in determining the connection between a requested psychological condition and a compensable physical injury in order for that requested psychological condition to qualify as a compensable injury. The Supreme Court looked heavily at the actual definition of an “injury” found under Ohio Revised Code §4123.01 (C)(1). Under the definition of an “injury” the Court found that to constitute a compensable psychological injury for purposes of workers’ compensation that the condition must be causally related to the injured worker’s compensable physical injury. The Supreme Court was also quick to point out that they had never held that a psychological condition is compensable solely because it developed contemporaneously with a compensable physical injury. In Mr. Armstrong’s case, the Court noted that he must connect his compensable physical injuries of a cervical strain, thoracic strain, and/or lumbar strain to the requested PTSD, and simply not his involvement in the accident.
This case can serve as a useful defense tool for employers going forward on requested psychological allowances when those allowances developed contemporaneous with the accident, but did not necessarily arise from the allowed physical injuries in the claim. Thus, in any PTSD request the injured worker must now prove that the PTSD is connected to the allowed physical conditions in the claim, and not solely from the accident itself. It is anticipated that the opposing side will learn of this case and instruct their reviewing psychologist or psychiatrist, in the future, to focus on the pain resulting from the allowed physical conditions, as opposed to the actual accident itself. Until then, though, employers should be armed with this case to argue against the compensability of those requested psychological conditions that do not arise from the allowed physical conditions in the claim. Employers should also educate their own examining psychologist or psychiatrist about this case because an injured worker may in fact have a certain psychological diagnosis, but under this case, that diagnosis may not otherwise be compensable. If you would like a copy of this decision, or have any questions, please contact a member of our Workers’ Compensation Practice Group.