Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Appeals Resolution Officer Decision
Decision Number: 20150087
Decision Date: February 13, 2015
Objecting Party: Worker
Represented by: Self-Represented
Respondent: Employer (not participating)
Hearing: Hearing in Writing
Heard by: D. Gowanlock, Appeals Resolution Officer
Issue
The worker is requesting entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS).
Background
This now 48 year old Concierge was hired by a firm which provided security services.
On October 17, 2014 the worker reported that she was not feeling well, she left work and sought emergency medical attention. According to the worker, she passed out/fainted due to shock and panic attack brought about by a rude verbal assault by the company owner. The worker was placed off work until October 31, 2014 due to a situational crisis.
According to the documentation on the case record, the worker terminated her employment on October 17, 2014.
Case Manager’s Decision
On October 30, 2014 the Case Manager denied entitlement to TMS on the basis that the incidents, while unpleasant, were not unexpectedly traumatic.
Worker’s Position
The worker objects to the Case Manager decision dated October 30, 2014. It is the position of the worker that the evidence on the case record supports entitlement to TMS.
Authority
The following Operational Policy applies:
15-03-02 Traumatic Mental Stress
Analysis
Issue: Entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress
I find that entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress remains denied.
Policy 15-03-02 states that a worker is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress that is an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of employment. A worker is not entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress that is a result of the employer's employment decisions or actions.
In order to consider entitlement for traumatic mental stress, a decision-maker must identify that a sudden and unexpected traumatic event occurred. A traumatic event may be a result of a criminal act, harassment, or a horrific accident, and may involve actual or threatened death or serious harm against the worker, a co-worker, a worker’s family member, or others.
In all cases, the event must arise out of and occur in the course of the employment, and be:
- clearly and precisely identifiable
- objectively traumatic, and
- unexpected in the normal or daily course of the worker’s employment or work environment
The worker described three incidents. On October 9, 2014 while working as a Concierge in the lobby of a building, the owner of the company whom she had never met before, rudely commented on the fact that the worker did not stand up to greet him and that she was not wearing her uniform blazer. The owner pointed his finger at her and threatened to fire her and insisted that she remove her own jacket. The worker felt very embarrassed, ridiculed and disrespected on this occasion.
On October 13, 2014 the owner admonished her aggressively for speaking with a resident. The owner was verbally aggressive, rude and pointed his finger at her. The owner’s behaviour shocked her. She was also instructed to remove her nose ring, which she wore as a married Hindu woman. She was not given the opportunity to explain its religious importance and the experience was traumatic. The owner also accused the worker of hiding something in her desk and she felt that this was a direct assault on her work ethics.
On October 17, 2014 the owner suddenly started searching her desk drawers and repeatedly accused the worker of doing something wrong. The worker stated that the accusations were traumatic and she was fearful. It was after this incident that she fainted.
It is the position of the worker that the owner’s threatening body language, insulting and violently rude spoken tone and language was clearly and precisely identifiable, objectively traumatic and unexpected in the normal course of her employment at the work site. Her fainting was actually an acute reaction to the sudden and unexpected traumatic events created by her employer’s harassment over the three visits. Included with the worker’s written statement were copies of letters provided by residents in the building where she worked as Concierge and a copy of a prescription for medications issued on November 11, 2014.
In determining whether the worker meets the criteria for entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress I note the following:
The incidents described by the worker would certainly not have been pleasant and were somewhat unexpected during the normal course of her workday. However, the requirements for entitlement under the Traumatic Mental Stress policy clearly anticipate that entitlement only applies where the circumstances of any harassment are of a very serious nature and that a threat to personal safety and security is explicit.
There is no indication that any of the comments or actions directed towards the worker involved actual or threatened physical violence and based on the worker’s statements to the Case Manger it does not appear that she experienced any physical violence nor was she placed into a life-threatening situation as a result of the actions of the owner.
Further, the policy requires that for an acute reaction or delayed onset or onset due to cumulative effect, there must be an Axis 1 diagnosis in accordance with the DSM-IV offered by a psychiatrist or psychologist and there does not appear to be any such medical reporting on the case record.
While I am prepared to accept that the comments and actions of the owner were neither pleasant nor appropriate in the workplace; the comments and actions in and of themselves would not establish entitlement under the Traumatic Mental Stress policy. I am persuaded that they do not meet the definition of a sudden and unexpected event that was objectively traumatic within the context of the Traumatic Mental Stress policy. On this basis, I find that entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress remains denied.
Conclusion
Entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress remains denied.
The objection is denied.
DATED February 13, 2015
D. Gowanlock Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division