APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20230046
OBJECTING PARTY: WORKER
REPRESENTED by: WORKER REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONDENT: EMPLOYER
REPRESENTED by: EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVE
HEARING: HEARING IN WRITING
HEARD by: D. GOWANLOCK, APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER
DATED: NOVEMBER 30, 2022
ISSUES
The worker is objecting to:
The Case Manager decisions dated July 14, 2022 and July 22, 2022 denying entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress for events occurring prior to September of 2018.
The Case Manager decisions dated July 14, 2022 and July 22, 2022 denying entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress for events occurring prior to September of 2018.
BACKGROUND
This claim was established upon the receipt of a Worker’s Report of Injury – Form 6 dated November 13, 2018. Under Section C Accident/Illness Dates and Details, the worker notes that a pre-existing psychological condition was exacerbated by ongoing physical risk factors and lack of accommodation and modified duties. The worker first started to have problems in September of 2018.
Copies of Employee Incident/Accident Reports for the months of September and October of 2018 outlining incidents involving students were sent to the case record.
The worker’s treating psychologist Dr. Hunt provided a copy of a letter dated September 13, 2018 sent to the worker’s physician Dr. Kaptein confirming the worker’s current diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with Dissociative Features and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode, Moderate to Severe. Copies of letters dated October 1, October 4 and October 9, 2018 sent to the employer advising that the worker required psychological work restrictions including no restraints and no flight risk students are on the case record.
A Medical Certificate dated October 9, 2018 notes that because the requested restrictions (note of September 21, 2018) were not implemented, the worker experienced a deterioration in their mental state to the point where they were totally unable to work. The worker was receiving counseling and was to see a psychiatrist.
A Health Professional’s Report – Form 8 dated November 12, 2018 completed by Dr. Kaptein provides diagnoses of complex PTSD with dissociative features and severe depression due to being attacked by students.
According to the Employer’s Report of Injury – Form 7 dated November 22, 2018; the worker was hired by the School Board in September of 2007 and employed as an Educational Assistant (EA). On September 20, 2018, the worker reported an injury to their left forearm caused by a student with special needs. The student lunged at the worker, scratching their arm. The worker stopped working on September 21, 2018.
On December 3, 2018, Dr. Kaptein submitted medical reports in response to WSIB’s request dated November 20, 2018. The physician included:
a copy of the January 25, 2018 note from Dr. Aidoo indicating that the worker requested a sick note for a stress-related issue at work
clinical notes from June 16, 2016 through to October 9, 2018
a copy of Dr. Dwaifo’s report dated July 16, 2018
a copy of Dr. Hunt’s September 13, 2018 letter
a copy of Dr. Alkenbrack’s report dated November 1, 2018
a copy of the Form 8 dated November 12, 2018
On December 18, 2018, a written statement was received from the worker. On January 22, 2019, the Case Manager spoke to the worker and confirmed their statement.
On January 25, 2019, the Case Manager reviewed the details of the case and denied entitlement to a mental stress injury under the Chronic Mental Stress policy. This decision was communicated to the workplace parties in writing.
On May 14, 2019, the worker representative wrote to the Case Manager requesting entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress.
In a letter dated May 16, 2019, the Case Manager wrote to the worker representative denying entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress.
The worker objected to the January 25, 2019 and the May 16, 2019 decisions. The worker’s case was heard by an Appeal Resolution Officer on March 4, 2020. The subsequent March 11, 2020 ARO decision confirms the denial of entitlement to both Traumatic Mental Stress and Chronic Mental Stress.
Subsequent to the ARO decision, on September 16, 2021 the worker representative wrote to the Appeals Services Division (ASD) indicating the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) did not have jurisdiction over the issue of the harassment from co-workers and the associated events prior to September of 2018. It is the position of the representative that the ARO directly references the workplace harassment and supporting documents on file. Therefore, the issue of workplace harassment and the evidence pertaining to this issue was put before the ARO and considered by them at the time that they rendered the decision. The representative requested the Board confirm whether the issue of harassment was considered as part of the final decision denying entitlement to both Chronic Mental Stress and Traumatic Mental Stress. This confirmation was required in order for the worker’s claim to be reactivated at the Tribunal without further issues arising related to jurisdiction.
In a letter dated October 22, 2021, an ASD Manager wrote to the worker representative confirming the ARO did not consider or rule on the 2017/2018 workplace harassment in the March 11, 2020 decision.
On November 30, 2021, the worker representative wrote to WSIB requesting a written decision regarding entitlement to both Chronic Mental Stress and Traumatic Mental Stress inclusive of the harassment the worker faced prior to the start of their September 2018 school year.
On January 27, 2002 and March 7, 2022, the worker representative provided correspondence that includes the worker’s hand-written notes outlining specific examples of workplace harassment. Attempts were made to obtain information from the employer in terms of the incidents reported by the worker.
However given that the information was not forthcoming, it was decided to have a WSIB investigator obtain the necessary information.
In June of 2022, additional information was received from the employer, in addition to the WSIB Investigator’s notes.
On July 11, 2022, under memo x, the Case Manager summarized the details of the case. On July 14, 2022, the Case Manager reconsidered entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress based on incidents occurring in 2017 and 2018 and found that the criteria establishing entitlement were not met. The decision denying entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress was communicated to the workplace parties on July 14, 2022.
On July 22, 2022, the Case Manager addressed the incidents occurring in 2017 and 2018 as they pertained to the Traumatic Mental Stress policy, and confirmed the denial of entitlement in writing.
The worker objects to the July 14, 2022 and the July 22, 2022 decisions.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Published
15-03-02 Traumatic Mental Stress January 2, 2018
15-03-14 Chronic Mental Stress January 2, 2018
ANALYSIS
In my review, I have had regard for the case file documentation, relevant policy, legislation and the submissions put forth by the worker representative and the employer representative with respect to the issues. I have considered all the evidence and the following is a summary of my decision.
Worker Representative Submission
The worker representative provided an Appeal Readiness Form dated August 25, 2022 and included a submission. The worker representative is pursuing the issue of entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress and Chronic Mental Stress in order to obtain a final decision from the Board on the issue of initial entitlement under both policies, inclusive of all exposures to trauma and harassment the worker experienced prior to the start of the September 2018 school year.
The representative is requesting that this appeal proceed as a written appeal to avoid further re- traumatization of the worker during testimony, as the worker has already provided testimonial evidence regarding their exposures during the oral hearing in March 2020 resulting in the prior ARO decision. The representative also knows from the documented evidence that the harassment the worker faced prior to September 2018 resulted in their moving to a new school for the start of the September 2018 school year.
The representative has continuously detailed their position that the worker be granted entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress, or in the alternative Chronic Mental Stress. Reference was made to the previous submissions dated March 2, 2020 and March 7, 2022. The representative continues to disagree with the denial of entitlement in this claim, and thus the conclusions reached by the Case Manager in their decisions of July 14, 2022 and July 22, 2022.
Employer Representative Submission
The employer is participating in the appeals process and submitted a Respondent Form dated October 6, 2022. The employer had no new medical or evidence to provide.
Issue 1: Entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress
I find that the criteria required establishing entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress have not been met. I arrived at this decision based on the following:
Policy
Policy 15-03-14 Chronic Mental Stress states in part:
A worker is entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
A worker is not entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress caused by decisions or actions of the worker’s employer relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the employment.
Workplace harassment
Workplace harassment occurs when a person or persons, while in the course of the employment, engage in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker, including bullying, that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.
Chronic mental stress
A claim for chronic mental stress (as described below) is distinct from a claim for traumatic mental stress.
A worker will generally be entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
The term “work-related stressor” is meant to include multiple work-related stressors, as well as a cumulative series of work-related stressors.
In order to consider entitlement for chronic mental stress the WSIB decision-maker must be able to identify the event(s) which are alleged to have caused the chronic mental stress.
This means that the event(s) can be confirmed by the WSIB decision-maker through information or knowledge provided by co-workers, supervisory staff, or others.
Substantial work-related stressor
A work-related stressor will generally be considered substantial if it is excessive in intensity and/or duration in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by workers in similar circumstances.
Workplace harassment will generally be considered a substantial work-related stressor. Jobs with a high degree of routine stress
A claim for chronic mental stress made by a worker employed in an occupation, or a category of jobs within an occupation, reasonably characterized by a high degree of routine stress should not be denied simply because all workers employed in that occupation, or category of jobs within that occupation, are normally exposed to a high level of stress. In some cases, therefore, consistent exposure to a high level of routine stress over time may qualify as a substantial work-related stressor.
Jobs with a high degree of routine stress would typically have one or both of the following characteristics:
responsibility over matters involving life and death, or
routine work in extremely dangerous circumstances.
Interpersonal conflicts
Interpersonal conflicts between workers and their supervisors, co-workers or customers are generally considered to be a typical feature of normal employment. Consequently, such interpersonal conflicts are not generally considered to be a substantial work-related stressor, unless the conflict
amounts to workplace harassment, or
results in conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive.
Standard of proof and causation
In all cases, the WSIB decision-maker must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the substantial work-related stressor
arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment, and
was the predominant cause of an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury.
For the purposes of this policy, “predominant cause” means that the substantial work-related stressor is the primary or main cause of the mental stress injury—as compared to all of the other individual stressors. Therefore, the substantial work-related stressor can still be considered the predominant cause of the mental stress injury even though it may be outweighed by all of the other stressors, when combined.
Case Details
In determining whether the criteria required establishing entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress have been met, I found the following documentary and medical evidence relevant to the issue:
The initiating Form 7, Form 6 and Form 8
Medical reporting provided by Dr. Kaptein on December 3, 2018
The written statement prepared by the worker and submitted on December 18, 2018
Memo A outlining the worker’s statement
Return to work notes written by Dr. Kaptein from March of 2018 through to September of 2018 (correspondence dated February 21, 2019)
The May 14, 2019 submission provided by the worker representative
The March 11, 2020 Appeals Resolution Officer decision
The November 30, 2021 submission provided by the worker representative referencing harassment during the 2017 and 2018 school year
The January 27, 2022 submission provided by the worker representative describing the incidents throughout 2017 and 2018
The March 7, 2022 submission provided by the worker representative
The June 17, 2022 Investigation Notes
Statements from the employer and co-workers received on June 22, 2022
The case initiating documents including the Form 8 dated November 12, 2018, the Form 6 dated November 13, 2018 and Form 7 dated November 22, 2018, do not reference any incidents occurring prior to September of 2018 and only speak to incidents involving children in the school environment starting in September of 2018.
On December 18, 2018, the worker provided a three page written statement. In this statement, the worker outlines that in October of 2016, 2017 and January of 2018, they were dealing with workplace harassment. They remained off work from January of 2018 until June of 2018 and were seen by their family doctor, psychologist and psychiatrist. They received a diagnosis of PTSD and severe depression. They returned to work in September of 2018 due to their financial situation. Upon their return to work, the worker was placed with two volatile students for the entire day. These students exhibited unpredictable behaviours and violent tendencies, with one student requiring continuous restraints. Their request for modification was ignored by the employer and the Board was unresponsive. The lack of accommodation led to and forced the worker into a triggering event. On September 20, 2018, both student behaviours were off the charts. At the end of the day, they fell apart.
In memo A dated January 22, 2019, the worker references issues related to co-workers (no names mentioned); however, the worker confirmed that their claim was not related to these issues. This comment provided by the worker was highlighted by the Case Manager.
The May 14, 2019 submission provided by the worker representative notes that the worker has a history of mental health issues and that they have a vulnerable psyche. Their mental health problems were not caused by the workplace exposure, but were significantly aggravated by it. The employer’s failure to accommodate the worker’s restrictions compounded the situation and caused the work stoppage on October 9, 2018. The representative speaks to the frequency of assaults from September 6, 2018 to October 4, 2018. The representative contends that while the worker had pre-existing psychological diagnoses, it was clear that the multiple assaults and the lack of a safe and suitable work resulted in an aggravation of the worker’s PTSD and depressive symptoms to the point the worker was unable to continue working.
In the ARO decision dated March 11, 2020, the worker offers some testimony that speaks to the other EAs. Specifically, the ARO notes that the worker testified to:
There was a meeting between the five EA’s and the principal at School in 2017. One of the EA’s commented that there were really only four EA’s and the principal did not correct the EA who made this remark. The same EA who made this remark talked about the worker to others indicating that they should be replaced. The worker believes this person contacted the union about getting rid of them. This went on for some time. They reached out to the classroom teacher, the resource teacher and then the principal about this, but very little was done. The worker felt their reputation changed. They felt invisible. This caused them to lose confidence. They did not trust anyone around them. They felt broken and isolated.
The worker stopped work in January 2018 due to stress. They remained off work for the rest of the school year.
The March 11, 2020 ARO decision denies entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress based on incidents that occurred in September of 2018.
The first reference to incidents occurring prior to September of 2018 is documented in the worker representative November 30, 2021 correspondence. In this submission, the representative notes that the worker’s experiencing harassment in their prior school during the 2017/2018 school year is well documented throughout the file. This harassment necessitated that the worker take a brief leave of absence from work, and relocate to another school for the September 2018 school year. The medical evidence contained within the claim file also supports that this initial harassment impacted the worker psychologically, rendering them psychologically vulnerable to sustaining a severe mental stress injury when cumulatively exposed to trauma occupationally in September and October of 2018.
The worker representative goes on to state that although the worker initially communicated that their prior history of harassment in 2018 was not part of their claim for a mental stress injury, the representative submits that the medical evidence supports the worker has substantial psychological conditions including PTSD with Dissociative Features and Major Depressive Disorder. In particular, the worker’s PTSD symptoms escalated and impaired their functioning such that they began incurring absence from work in October 2018, in response to the repeated violent assaults they were subjected to in a short time frame, while working as an EA. Given these factors, it is reasonable that in their discussions with WSIB in January 2019, they likely did not have full appreciation for the role that the harassment they experienced at their prior school had on their overall mental state, prior to the start of the September 2018 school year.
According to the worker representative, despite the worker not acknowledging the harassment as part of their claim, this harassment still provides context to their mental state at the time they entered the September 2018 school year. Thus, it is necessary that this factor be considered with respect to their claim, particularly in relation to Chronic Mental Stress.
The worker representative references policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress that conceptualizes a ‘work-related stressor’ as including multiple work-related stressors, as well as a cumulative series of work-related stressors. The representative submits that when reviewing for entitlement for a mental stress injury pursuant to the Chronic Mental Stress policy, it is imperative to holistically review the cumulative exposure to work-related stressors. Although the worker returned to work in September 2018, and they ultimately experienced a rapid psychological deterioration in relation to the cumulative series of traumatic assaults they faced by the violent students they were working with, one must also consider the harassment they faced prior to September 2018 and the role this played in causing them to be psychologically vulnerable. The representative requested that entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress be considered given to the workplace harassment the worker experienced in advance of September 2018.
On January 27, 2022, the worker representative provided a submission that includes hand-written notes from the worker. The representative summarized the examples of workplace harassment including:
Instances throughout 2017 to 2018 where their direct co-worker LT would often go out of their way to undermine or belittle the worker within the work environment. The worker provided multiple examples of instances where their co-worker would purposefully allow the child that was meant to be under their care do the opposite of what the worker had advised, simply to cause friction.
Their co-worker making backhanded or rude comments about them and their work ethic and style.
Examples of their co-worker questioning the details of their mental health issues, both in private conversations and in front of others during meetings.
Trying to bring these issues forward and feeling unheard.
Describing an incident from October of 2017 where their schedule changed and ongoing mental health issues were discussed in front of other staff members in a staff meeting.
Endorsing a consistent atmosphere of animosity and out grouping from their fellow co-workers, who treated them as a ‘burden’ and an outcast due to the fact that they needed to perform modified duties to accommodate for their mental health.
With respect to Chronic Mental Stress, the representative submits that harassment—which includes vexatious comment or bullying—is compensable. In this instance, by purposefully out grouping them and making them feel unwanted, their co-workers showed a systematic pattern of bullying, which should be considered as harassment.
In reviewing the hand-written notes provided by the worker, I found them to mostly be illegible and confusing. Therefore, I was not able to place any weight on these written notes. I note that on February 28, 2022 the Case Manager spoke to the worker representative indicating that the written notes were difficult to read. In order to adjudicate any allegations of harassment, the Case Manager would require specific incident dates and details in order to review them with the employer.
On March 7, 2022, the worker representative provided another submission. Given that the worker was retriggering when speaking about their experiences, it was the opinion of the worker representative that that there was ample information contained within the claim file to assist in the identification of instances of harassment. Reference was made to a prior submission dated March 2, 2020 providing an overview of some of the incidents that the worker faced in 2017, a copy of which was attached to this document. The incidents are identified as follows:
January 20, 2017 – There was a PA day and co-worker LT made sure to sit on the other side of the room and ignored the worker throughout their mandated training.
February 14, 2017 – LT approached the worker and asked them to close the staff room door because LT had something to talk to them about. LT advised the worker that they were thinking about “posting out”. When the worker asked LT if it was because they were on modified duties, LT replied “yes” and asked how much longer the worker would be modified.
April 6, 2017 – The worker had been given a verbal task which was different from the one posted on the schedule. LT accosted the worker and asked why they were not where they were supposed to be and told the worker that they ought to return to their scheduled assignment.
April 12, 2017 – A teacher approached the worker advising that another EA who the worker refers to as MP had called them “lazy’ while gossiping with another teacher.
April 16, 2017 – The worker had a nightmare where they were being bullied, taunted and harassed by LT.
Fall of 2017 – In a group meeting about coverage, the worker was made to feel ignored and excluded which led them to exclaim, “I’m not totally useless, I can help”.
Fall of 2017 – LT walked into a classroom and asked the worker when their next doctor’s appointment was. The worker felt that this question was insincere and highly unusual.
Fall of 2017 – The worker heard that another EA JB had phoned the union about their removal, claiming that the worker was a burden on their team.
Fall of 2017 – The worker had a private conversation with the principal where they promised that they would not take action for the harassment. The principal requested a copy of the worker’s notes on LT.
Fall of 2017 – The worker was told that LT has been stating that their student’s behavioural problems were due to the worker’s lack of competence.
Fall of 2017 – On occasion, LT would undermine the worker’s authority and judgement with their student JJ.
The worker representative notes that in the prior ARO decision, the worker’s testimony is detailed. It is noted that the worker began working at School X in fall 2016. In the fall 2016, the worker broke their ankle. Due to this injury, they were provided with accommodation and modified duties. During the following school year, they continued to have problems with both their foot and knee and their modifications continued.
According to the worker representative, in 2017 the worker began to be targeted by one of their co- workers regarding their disability and ongoing need for accommodation. One co-worker in particular engaged in vexatious comment regarding the worker, including comments indicating that despite there being five EAs at the school, ‘there really is only four”, indicating that the worker was useless. This particular co-worker continued to spread comments that the worker should be fired. As a result, the worker was ostracized by the other EAs and despite reaching out for support from the principal and the classroom teacher; nothing was done about the treatment they were experiencing. The worker would overhear colleagues calling them useless. Their co-workers would not eat lunch with them or engage them.
It is the position of the worker representative that the worker was essentially targeted and bullied by their co-workers, and in particular one co-worker who attempted to try and get them fired, due to their physical disability. The worker stopped working in January 2018 due to this harassment and they did not return to work until September 2018. Due to the bullying and mistreatment at School X, the worker switched schools and began working at School Y in September 2018 when they returned to work. Thus, the bullying necessitated that the worker change the school they were working at in 2018.
The worker representative references clinical notes from Dr. Kaptein that indicate the psychological deterioration the worker experienced beginning in 2017. For example, the clinic note dated May 4, 2017 indicates that the worker was under a lot of stress at work, the person they thought was helping them had stopped. They loved their job and did not want to find a new one, but was having difficulty coping. A further clinical note dated January 29, 2018 outlines that the worker had a big problem at work in the last few weeks where a colleague became very abusive and things rapidly escalated to the point where they just could not take it anymore. The worker was very upset that they gave their students to this person that the worker was having problems with. They wanted to go to a different school.
The worker representative also references Dr. Uwaifo’s Mental Health Outpatient Report dated July 16, 2018 that details that the worker had been facing bullying and harassment from two of their colleagues. The worker had been given accommodations at work and their colleagues began to make disparaging comments about them. The worker recounted being cornered by a co-worker who was demanding to know what their mental health issues were. They were criticized routinely in front of their other co- workers by their harassers, and they did not have support from the principal. The worker was to return to work in September 2018 and they had been switched to a new school.
Given that the employer was unable to provide the necessary information to adjudicate the case, the Case Manager requested the assistance of a WSIB field investigator. The June 17, 2022 investigation notes provide statements from the employer (Human Resources Coordinator), the school principal, four co-workers, two AEs and two teachers. The principal notes that the one co-worker LT was now deceased.
According to Human Resources, an investigation was never completed because the worker never sent in an substantiating evidence. The worker left School X and posted to another school. The principal sent information to the school board including their own personal notes, however nothing was ever substantiated. The Investigator asked for any information to be sent to the case.
Documentation received from the employer as of January of 2018 includes general notes regarding the worker and their co-worker. I found the following excerpts to be relevant to the worker’s request for entitlement to a mental stress injury in 2017/2018:
A note dated January 17, 2018 documents that the worker requested to talk and that they would be bringing two teachers to speak on their behalf. Their co-worker LT was also going to speak to them.
A note dated January 17, 2018 documents the co-worker LT asking to speak about the worker insulting them. They were talking about a student’s behaviour, the challenges, and the escalation. During the discussion, the worker advised the co-worker that the student does not grab and throw items while with them, so perhaps the co-worker has the problem.
On January 22, 2018, the principal sent an email to the worker about a meeting to resolve both parties concerns.
An email to both the worker and the co-worker LT, sent on January 25, 2018, confirms that a meeting was set for January 30, 2018.
An email to the co-worker LT dated January 29, 2018 documents that the meeting was rescheduled for the following week.
On Monday January 29, 2018, the worker’s physician wrote a note advising that the worker was totally disabled as of Thursday January 25, 2018. The Human Resources Assistant received this note.
An email dated January 29, 2018 from the principal to the worker and the co-worker confirms that the meeting was to be rescheduled to February 6, 2018.
In an email dated January 31, 2018 sent to the Human Resources Assistant, the principal questions why the worker was not at work given that there was no absence in the system.
On February 3, 2018, the worker sent an email to the principal discussing the location of the materials that they had used for a student. The worker noted that the student’s mother had contacted them to ask as to whether they would going to SNAP with the student. The worker replied that they were not because their friend died and that they were not returning until March.
On February 15, 2018, the worker sent an email to the principal asking why their schedule had changed. In response, the principal advised the worker that a discussion around their schedule would take place upon the worker’s return to work.
On February 15, 2018, the principal sent an email to a colleague confirming that the worker made comments about them grading their job modifications there were untrue. The principal notes that they wanted the worker to stop making these false accusations. Also, the worker been texting a parent regularly despite the process where the communication comes from the classroom teacher, unless the principal feel that EA input would be appropriate. These concerns were not discussed directly with the worker as they were off sick. The principal was planning on having a discussion with the worker.
On July 28, 2019, the principal wrote an email to a colleague advising that the co-worker LT and the worker were both being transferred to them. The principal wanted to let their colleague know that LT was pursuing a possible harassment against the worker; however, the worker went on leave before they could meet with them. They have not worked together since that situation.
In an email dated May 3, 2022, the principal wrote to a colleague regarding the worker and their co-worker. The co-worker LT stated that the worker insulted them by saying that they were just an EA that did break. The worker stated that they had issues since September and tried to ignore it. Their co-worker stated they could not work in the worker’s clutter. The co-worker would make comments about how the worker would allow the student to do things outside of the program. This was addressed by KB who provided recommendations for both EAs. Apparently, LT would speak about the worker to other staff. There were comments back and forth to each other and they were making comments about what strategies the other EA was using. KB provided clarification and recommendations to ensure both EAs were following what was best for the student rather than making comments about each other. KB confirmed that the student did better when working with
LT, very structured, and the student needed a more direct approach. KB confirmed that there were complaints that the worker was not following the program as outlined.
A statement was obtained from AC, the principal of School X as follows:
The worker and co-worker LT worked in the same classroom and when the worker left in 2018, they had to declutter noting that it was messy with most of the items belonging to the worker.
Both were claiming harassment by each other. Presently LT is deceased.
They were never able to resolve the issue between the two EAs because they both left posting out to the same school in September of 2018. This was their right to post out and choose where they were going.
They had known the worker for 2-1/2 years through work only. They had known LT for 3 years through work only. They had known JB for 5 years through work only. They had known MP for 20 years through work only.
The worker was very reflective, wears their heart on their sleeve, somewhat of an attitude to change, caring, opinionated, over analyzed things.
LT was direct, caring, compassionate, and opinionated, over analyzed things, and was quite up front.
MP was high energy, boisterous, says it like it is, opinionated, and speaks up about student safety.
They never witnessed the injured worker being bullied, belittled, or harassed by anyone at work.
The worker had come to them complaining that LT was harassing them and vice versa with LT complaining that the worker was doing the same to them. The principal felt that this was a personality clash between the two. The worker and LT could not take supported ideas from each other and this caused problems.
The principal did not recall LT, MP or JB making disparaging remarks towards the worker.
Some EA’s eat lunch together, some eat on their own, and this all depends on the schedule. Occasionally, schedules overlap when possibly one or two EA’s may eat lunch together. The worker was not left out. It was a matter of the scheduling of the EA’s. The worker never brought this to their attention as being an issue.
The EAs used their own cell phones for communication between staff and texting each other concerning students. Nothing was ever brought to their attention about cell phones being used inappropriately.
The worker could be with the same student all day depending on how high-need the student was. Normally, the EA’s switch with each other from morning and afternoons, as well as lunch and breaks. Therefore, the students could have up to three different EA’s daily.
The EA’s are not assigned to individual students, but to the school, where they would be assigned by the principal to the individual students.
The principal is not aware of why the worker went off in January 2018 other than the worker was on a leave.
Both the worker and LT came to them stating there was friction between each other.
They tried to arrange meetings between the worker and LT, but with the worker going off work and then LT taking time off, and then both posting out of the school, this could never be arranged. Nor was this followed up by either party.
The worker did state that they did not want to make a formal harassment issue concerning LT, but with the worker going off again, nothing further evolved.
A statement was obtained from co-worker JB (EA):
They had known the worker for the time the worker was at School X through work only. They worked as an EA along with the worker.
They had known LT for 20+ years through work and socially. They were friendly and kind.
They had known MP for 6 years through work only. They were friendly and kind.
The worker was friendly and kind.
They never witnessed the worker being bullied, belittled, or harassed at work by anyone, themselves included, nor did they hear anything about this at the school.
They never stated to anyone that they have four EA’s not five. They never told the principal that the worker was a burden, nor have they ever called the union complaining about the worker being a burden.
They deny ever spreading disparaging remarks about the worker or stating they should be fired.
The only time they would use their cell phone is for an emergency.
All the EA’s are on different schedules; therefore, eating lunch together only occurs when there is an overlap. Noting this, the worker was not left out.
They have no idea why the worker posted out of this school or went off in January 2018.
A statement was obtained from JR (teacher):
They have known the worker for the time the worker was at School X. This would be through work and socially. The worker was the most kind-hearted, sweetest, generous, thoughtful, giving person, very genuine, great with the students; their heart went into the job, and going above and beyond to help students.
They have known LT for the time they were at School X and this would be through work only. They were very vocal, loud, opinionated, could be short at times, with a strong personality.
They have known JB for the last 20+ years through work only. They are strong-willed, strong opinions, likes things their way, and likes to give direction, friendly.
They have never witnessed the worker being bullied, belittled, or harassed by anyone at work. The worker confided that LT was over stepping, telling the worker how to do the job, stating they are not doing a good job with the student in their charge. This worsened to the point that where the worker went to the principal, about the friction between the two. No further specifics could be recalled.
They did not hear disparaging remarks made about the worker from LT or JB. They both had issues with the worker being on light work and felt they had more of a load to handle due to this. They felt it was unfair, even though it was authorized light work for the worker.
They could not recall MP complaining to them about the worker being lazy.
The worker was the opposite of lazy when dealing with their students.
The negative attitude shared by the other EAs, as stated, had to do with the worker being on light work.
The worker went off work due to the animosity they were experiencing at School X from the EA’s plus the fact that the worker felt they were unsupported by the principal.
A statement was obtained from FM (teacher):
They have known the worker for 2 years through work only.
They have known LT for 2 years through work only. They were nice, easy to talk to, always trying to help the students, brought a lot the table through the experience they had in the past.
They have known JB for 9 years through work only. They are a nice person, hard worker.
They have known MP for 7 years through work only. They are a nice person, hard worker.
They have never witnessed the worker being bullied, belittled, or harassed by anyone at work, nor have they ever heard anything along these lines at the school.
They are unaware of LT or JB openly making disparaging remarks about the worker, nor can they recall MP complaining to them about the worker being lazy.
They do not recall there being a negative attitude towards the worker from the other EA’s.
They are unaware of why the worker went off in January 2018 or why the injured worker posted to another school.
In turning to the medical reporting on the case record, clinical records from Dr. Kaptein document the death of a person and depression in July of 2016. In December of 2016, the worker reported having a rough time lately at school as there were a couple of teachers that had been very nasty to them. On May 4, 2017, the worker complained of being under intense stress at school and the one person that they thought was helping them had stopped. On July 4, 2017, the worker reported that their stress level was better from increased medication or the school break.
There is a one-page letter dated January 25, 2018 from Dr. Aidoo sent to the worker’s family physician. According to Dr. Aidoo, the worker requested a sick note reporting a history of stress-related issues at work over the last one and a half years, indicating that the stress had escalated in the past few weeks. The worker felt they required a break and they were going to explode. A sick note was provided to the worker and counseling was recommended.
The January 29, 2018 clinical note documents the worker having a big problem at work in the last few weeks. A colleague had become very abusive and things rapidly escalated over the past few weeks to the point where they just could not take it any longer. In addition, their best friend died of pancreatic cancer and they felt like they were going to explode. They saw Dr. Aidoo who put them off work for a few days until they could be seen. They were not sleeping and were very agitated. They were very upset that they gave their students to this woman that they have been having problems with. There were a lot of problems that they saw at the school and they were going to talk to their union about what their options were at this point. Ideally, they would like to go to another school. They did not feel that they could cope at this school right now.
On January 29, 2018, family physician Dr. Kaptein wrote a note on behalf of the worker advising that they were totally disabled as of Thursday, January 25, 2018. The worker was to be assessed during March break to see if they were fit to return to work.
The February 12, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting that they were not doing much better. They found out some things about the principal that made them not want to go back there. They were thinking about their options. In addition to everything else, their close friend lost their husband recently in an accident and they had been supporting them. They were going to counselling for stress and grieving.
The March 7, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting that they were not doing very well. Unfortunately another friend had died. They were looking at their options work wise and remained open to various options. They were not sleeping well. On March 7, 2018, Dr. Kaptein wrote a note for return to work indicating that the worker would not be able to return to work for the rest of the school year.
The April 10, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting twitching of their left eyelid and recurrent spasms in their cheek muscles. They had been under a huge amount of stress and things were not getting any better. They needed to fill out another form for the school board. In addition, their cat was run over. They had a memorial coming up shortly for a friend who died in State A. They felt like they were at the end of their rope. Their chiropractor had done something to their neck, which helped the vertigo.
On April 10, 2018, Dr. Kaptein completed a Medical Certificate in order to allow the worker to utilize sick leave credits through their employer. According to the family physician, the worker would be able to return to work in approximately three to four months. Medications and counselling were prescribed as treatment.
The May 7, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting that they were not well at all. They traveled to State A for a memorial service for their friend and actually felt well. They felt overwhelmed and had been having lots of nightmares, which they had in the past. One recurrent nightmare had to do with knives and they believe that this is because their one parent was physically abusive to their other parent when they were young. Their other parent was also very abusive. Their counselling with XY was finished. The worker was agreeable about seeing a psychiatrist.
The May 24, 2018 clinical note documents the worker’s mild glaucoma, their right thumb and their knee.
The May 29, 2018 clinical note documents periodic numbness traveling down the left arm, physiotherapy for the right knee and neck. The worker reported that their mood seemed to be good.
The June 21, 2018 clinical note documents the worker experiencing a few bad days this week. They were sorting through some things and found some postcards and letters from their friends who had recently died. They had put in applications for new jobs at several schools.
On July 16, 2018 the worker was assessed by Dr. Uwaifo, psychiatrist. The worker confirmed they had been employed as an EA for 12 years. They had faced bullying and harassment from two of their fellow colleagues. By virtue of their mental illness, accommodations were made for them at work, to the displeasure of these employees. They started making negative comments about them. They recalled incidents of being “cornered” and one of these people, who was also an EA, demanded to know what their mental status issues were, and whether or not they had resigned. According to the worker, they were always critical of them, even in front of colleagues. Instead of the principal standing up for them, the principal took sides with their coworkers. Ultimately, they became overwhelmed and decided to go off sick. According to the worker, just prior, their best friend had passed away. They recalled feeling anxious about going into work and encountering these people. Their self-confidence declined. They had difficulty remembering things. They had trouble falling and staying asleep. They were seen by Dr. Santher in December of 2015 for similar reasons. At the time, they were going through a costly divorce. The worker described having depression and anxiety in their twenties and the early part of their thirties, consequent upon stressful events. After seeing Dr. Santher in December, they had been feeling relatively well, until January of this year. The psychiatrist recommended a CT scan of the head, a sleep study for sleep walking as well as bereavement counselling. The diagnoses of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, in remission, were provided.
The July 26, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting they had been a bit worse this week for no apparent reason. They were approaching the start of school and admitted that they were nervous about that, although they did get a new job in City D. They had been at this school before and really liked it and was looking forward to getting back. They were concerned about the amount of gas required driving back and forth. The worker was seen by Dr. Uwaifo who recommended the worker get a brain scan, participate in a sleep study for their sleepwalking and that they attend grief counseling however, the worker did not want to attend one on one. On July 26, 2018, Dr. Kaptein wrote a note for return to work indicating that the worker could return to work on a graduated basis as of September 4, 2018.
On September 13, 2018, Dr. Hunt wrote to Dr. Kaptein advising that based on clinical interviewing and psychometric testing, the worker was diagnosed with PTSD with Dissociative Features and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode, Moderate to Severe.
The September 21, 2018 clinical note documents that unfortunately the worker was not doing well. They had started back to work and did part time work for the first two weeks and now they were back working full time again. They had a student with severe disabilities who was extremely violent and they had been beaten up basically every day by this student. They had been seeing psychologist Dr. Hunter over the summer who diagnosed them with complex PTSD based on their childhood experiences. They were still complaining of headaches. On September 21, 2018, Dr. Kaptein wrote a note for return to work indicating
that the worker was only able to work with students who did not require restraints and were not flight risks until further notice.
The October 9, 2018 clinical note documents that the employer did not enforce the restricted duties at work. The worker provided a huge long form to complete. The worker as placed off work and was seeing Dr. Hunt and a counsellor at work.
On November 1, 2018, the worker was assessed by Dr. Alkenbrack, psychotherapist who notes that the worker worked as an EA and experienced workplace harassment last year leading up to a five month absence from work due to anxiety and depression. They reported that over the summer their mood and sleep have improved. However, with starting school, they experienced an increase in psychosocial stressors, and a reported decreased mood and poorer sleep. They struggled with the stress of having been assigned to two children who required significant supervision and physical restraint at times. They reported being kicked and hit by the children. They have been off work again for several weeks, having failed to be assigned to different students. As a result of the stress at work, they had been sleeping poorly, mood and energy levels were low, and they experienced what they describe as “mania”, which includes some irritability. The worker also reported chronic difficulty with sleepwalking, where they will awake to find bruises or objects moved in the house. Reference was made to the worker’s social history that includes early developmental trauma from a difficult childhood with an abusive parent. The worker also reported being separated from an abusive husband. Reference was made to the worker’s psychiatric history and family history. According to the psychotherapist, the worker currently presented with increase psychosocial stressors, in the form of workplace stress, which has exacerbated their anxiety, mood, and sleep disturbances, in the context of complex developmental trauma.
The Health Professional’s Report – Form 8 dated November 12, 2018 completed by family physician Dr. Kaptein provides diagnoses of complex PTSD with dissociative features and severe depression as a result of being attacked by students.
On December 27, 2018, Dr. Kaptein completed a Medical Certificate in order to allow the worker to utilize sick leave credits through their employer. According to the family physician, the worker was unlikely to recover enough to work for at least another six to twelve months. The worker was unable to work due to mental illness. The worker was severely depressed with PTSD. The worker was unable to work with students or coworkers. The worker continued to seek treatment with a psychiatrist and psychologist and continued to be prescribed medications. A possible return to work date of September 2019 was noted.
Findings
The ARO in the March 11, 2020 decision found that the evidence did not establish that the worker’s assignment in September of 2018 was more difficult than that of other EAs. The worker’s job was stressful and difficult, but not excessive in intensity or duration compared to the pressures and tensions experienced by other EAs working for the school board. The ARO concluded that the worker was not exposed to a substantial work-related stressor. The ARO also concluded that the stress that arose related to the employer’s lack of response occurred as a result of an employment action (or inaction in this case). The stress the worker felt in relation to their working conditions including working with children and the lack of response from the employer to their restrictions, was not compensable under policy
15-03-14.
At this time, the issue before me is whether not the incidents prior to September of 2018 caused a mental stress injury.
In determining whether the criteria required establishing entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress, for events prior to September of 2018 have been met, I am guided by policy 15-03-14. I am required to determine if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by a substantial work-related stressor(s) arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
By definition, a work-related stressor will generally be considered substantial if it is excessive in intensity and/or duration in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by workers in similar circumstances.
The policy goes on to state that the WSIB decision-maker must be able to identify the event(s) which are alleged to have caused the chronic mental stress. This means that the event(s) can be confirmed by the WSIB decision-maker through information or knowledge provided by co-workers, supervisory staff, or others.
The worker provided limited testimony in terms of the events that occurred prior to September of 2018 at the time of the hearing on March 4, 2020. This testimony is outlined on page 3 of the ARO decision. I note that the worker did not provide specific dates for these events and it unclear if these events were reported to the employer. Although the worker representative contends that the worker’s testimony at the time of the oral hearing was detailed, I do not find this to be the case.
The March 7, 2022 submission from the worker representative provides correspondence outlining eleven incidents that occurred between January of 2017 and the fall of 2017. In reviewing these incidents and taking into consideration the witness statements obtained from the WSIB Investigator, I am unable to confirm that the co-workers were out grouping the worker, ostracizing the worker, trying to have the worker fired, removed or replaced. I am unable to find that any co-worker targeted or demonstrated a systematic system of bullying. I am unable to find that any co-workers engaged in making any vexatious comments about the worker. Of significance, the two AEs, the two teachers, as well as the principal, in their statements, unanimously confirmed that they had never witnessed the worker being bullied, belittled or harassed by anyone at work.
According to the reporting provided by the school board in June of 2022, on January 7, 2018 the worker reported to the principal they wanted to talk about LT. The principal attempted on several occasions to schedule a meeting, with the last meeting scheduled for February 6, 2018. However, the worker stopped working on January 25, 2018 and it appears that the worker never pursued having a meeting or officially making a report and establishing a harassment claim. It is interesting to note that on January 17, 2018 the co-worker LT requested to speak to the principal, as they believed that the worker was insulting them. The January 28, 2019 email from the principal to a colleague notes that the co-worker LT was pursuing a possible harassment charge against the worker.
The principal, in their statement to the WSIB Investigator confirms that the worker had come to them complaining that LT was harassing them and vice versa, with LT complaining that the worker was doing the same to them. The principal felt that this was a personality clash between the two. The worker and LT could not take supported ideas from each other and this caused problems. Both the worker and LT came to them stating there was friction between each other.
I acknowledge that working as an EA can be stressful and difficult. I also acknowledge that the duties of an EA could in some situations can cause stress, given the volatile nature of the special needs students as well as the challenges of working with other EAs in this challenging environment. However, in terms of policy 15-03-14 and entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress, the incidents described by the worker have not been confirmed through information or knowledge provided by the employer, co-workers, supervisory staff, or others.
In my view, and based on the statements provided by the principal and co-worker’s, the worker’s mental stress appears to have arisen out of the interpersonal conflict between the worker and their co-worker LT and possibly other co-workers. Policy 15-03-14 states that interpersonal conflicts are not generally considered to be a substantial work-related stressor.
Further, I am not persuaded that the interactions between the worker and LT and their other co-workers rose to the level of egregious or abusive. Based on the information provided by the principal, the worker’s stress also appears to have been caused by the decisions and actions of the employer relating to the worker’s employment.
In considering the medical reporting on the case record, there is evidence to support a pre-existing psychological condition. It is well documented that the worker struggled in their 20s and 30s. In the September 21, 2018 clinical note, Dr. Kaptein documents that the worker had been seeing psychologist Dr. Hunter over the summer who diagnosed them with complex PTSD based on their childhood experiences.
Clinical notes from Dr. Kaptein outlining assessments of the worker in 2016 and again in 2017 mentions the worker reporting some stress and depression related to school. In January of 2018, the worker requested a sick note and reported a history of stress over the last year and a half that had recently escalated. Clinical notes from January 29, 2018 through to June of 2018 document issues with a co- worker, problems at school, the death of their best friend, and a close friend who lost their spouse. They were going to counselling for stress and grieving. Despite being off work in April of 2018, the April 10, 2018 clinical notes document the worker reporting that they were under a huge amount of stress and things were not getting any better. Despite being off work, the May 7, 2018 clinical note documents the worker reporting that they felt overwhelmed and had been having a lot of nightmares in relation to their past. Their counselling with XY had finished. Arrangements were made to have the worker referred to a psychiatrist.
In the July 16, 2018 report prepared by Dr. Uwaifo, the psychiatrist documents the worker’s issues at school and the passing of their best friend. The psychiatrist recommended a CT scan of the head, a sleep study for sleep walking as well as bereavement counselling. A diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, in remission was noted.
The July 26, 2018 clinical note confirms that the worker was scheduled to start work at a new school in City D. The worker’s biggest concerns appeared to be the amount of gas they would require for driving.
On September 13, 2018, Dr. Hunt wrote to Dr. Kaptein advising that based on clinical interviewing and psychometric testing, the worker was diagnosed with PTSD with Dissociative Features and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode, Moderate to Severe.
In reviewing the medical reporting up until September of 2018 in its entirely, although the worker speaks to having a rough time at school, having problems at school and being overwhelmed as well as stress- related issues at work, including abuse, being bullied and harassed, of being cornered, and an abusive colleague, the worker’s reports to their treating practitioners are vague. Although the clinical notes provided by Dr. Kaptein document the worker reporting being stressed as a result of their work, these are generalized comments. At no time has the worker identified or provided any specific incidents.
As previously noted, the principal and co-worker’s statements do not support the worker’s reports of being harassed and bullied. Medical reporting provided Dr. Uwaifo in July of 2018 confirming that the worker was in remission for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, in remission, contrary to the very limited reporting provided by Dr. Hunt.
Further, I also note that there is a fair amount of medical reporting that is not available for review. According to the worker, they were participating in counseling in early 2018. There is no reporting from a counsellor or from a person by the name of XY. It is not clear when the worker was referred to
Dr. Hunt. The psychologist’s initial assessment documenting the clinical interview and psychometric testing is not on the case record.
According to the documentation provided by the employer, the worker was in receipt of long-term disability from May 2, 2019 until April 15, 2021. The worker has not provided copies of any applications or reporting from any third party insurance to support that their mental stress is related to work.
The worker representative argues that the medical evidence supports that the worker has substantial psychological conditions including PTSD with Dissociative Features and Major Depressive Disorder. However, I note that the worker reported to Dr. Kaptein that Dr. Hunt felt that their psychological condition was related to their childhood trauma. As noted, Dr. Hunt’s initial assessment of the worker is not available for review, and therefore I find I cannot agree with this position.
It is the position of the worker representative that the worker likely did not have full appreciation for the role that the harassment they experienced at their prior school had on their overall mental state prior to the start of the September 2018 school year. I do not agree with this presumption based on the fact that when the worker originally made a claim for a mental stress injury, they were adamant that their condition arose out of the incidents occurring in September of 2018, as documented in a memo. This same information is reflected on the Form 6, Form 7 and Form 8. The worker confirmed this position when testifying before the ARO in March of 2020. The majority of the medical reporting speaks to the incidents that occurred in September of 2018. Further, the worker had the opportunity to meet with the principal and their co-worker in January/February of 2018 to address their issues; however, the worker never proceeded with this opportunity. The employer has confirms that the worker did not register a formal harassment complaint.
In summary, I am unable to find that the criteria required establishing entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress for incidents occurring prior to September of 2018 have been met. The incidents as reported by the worker have not been confirmed by through information or knowledge provided by the employer, co- workers, supervisors staff or others. The principal and co-worker’s statements do not support the worker’s position. Based on the medical reporting available to me, the worker’s feelings of increased stress and the need to stop working in January of 2018 appear to be caused by personal life events given the recommendation for bereavement counselling in February and July of 2018. The fact that the worker’s level of stress only increased, while away from work, would appear to support this conclusion.
Based on the statements provided by the principal and co-workers, the worker’s mental stress appears to have arisen out of the interpersonal conflict between the worker and their co-worker LT and possibly other co-workers. Policy 15-03-14 states that interpersonal conflicts are not generally considered to be a substantial work-related stressor. Further, I find that the interactions between the worker and LT and their other co-workers did not amount to workplace harassment and never rose to the level of egregious or abusive. Based on the information provided by the principal, the worker’s stress may have also been caused by the decisions and actions of the employer relating to the worker’s employment. The worker is not entitled to Chronic Mental Stress based on the decisions or actions of the employer.
As a result of my analysis, I am unable to find that the worker’s mental stress arose out of and in the course of their employment. I find that the criteria required establishing entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress have not been met and entitlement remains denied.
Issue 2: Entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress
I find that the criteria required establishing entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress have not been met. I arrived at this decision based on the following:
Policy
Policy 15-03-02 Traumatic Mental Stress states in part:
A worker is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
A worker is not entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress caused by decisions or actions of the worker’s employer relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the employment.
A claim for traumatic mental stress (as described below) is distinct from a claim for chronic mental stress.
A worker will generally be entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by one or more traumatic events arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
In order to consider entitlement for mental stress related to one or more traumatic events, the WSIB decision-maker must identify that one or more traumatic events occurred. A traumatic event may be a result of a criminal act 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 most cases a traumatic event will be sudden and unexpected.
In all cases, the event(s) must arise out of and occur in the course of the employment, and be
clearly and precisely identifiable, and
objectively traumatic.
This means that the event(s)
can be established by the WSIB through information or knowledge of the event(s) provided by co- workers, supervisory staff, or others, and
is/are generally accepted as being traumatic.
In all cases, the WSIB decision-maker must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the traumatic event(s), or the cumulative effect of a series of traumatic events,
arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment, and
caused, or significantly contributed to, an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury.
Case Details and Findings
Policy 15-03-02 Traumatic Mental Stress states in part that a worker is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
In the March 11, 2020 decision, the ARO concludes that the incidents described by the worker were not objectively traumatic, when viewed within the context of providing to care to special needs students. The children assigned to the worker were no more challenging than other students at the school. The worker was not at risk of serious injury because of the age of the particularly difficult Grade 1 child. As such, entitlement cannot be granted under policy 15-03-02.
At this time, the issue before me is whether not the incidents prior to September of 2018 caused a mental stress injury.
The incidents described by the worker to have occurred from January of 2017 through to the fall of 2017 and prior to September of 2018, are in my view, in keeping with interpersonal conflict between the worker and their co-worker LT, other co-workers and possibly, as a result of the decisions and actions of the employer.
The incidents occurring between January of 2017 through to the fall of 2017 and prior to September of 2018 have not been established by the WSIB through information or knowledge of the events provided by co-workers, supervisory staff, or others. I do not consider the incidents that have been described by the worker to be objectivity traumatic and the cause of the worker’s mental stress injury, for which the worker stopped working in January of 2018. The incidents involving their co-workers as described by the worker, may have been unpleasant and hurtful, however, cannot be considered horrific or life threatening.
As previously noted, based on the medical reporting available to me, the worker’s feelings of increased stress and the need to stop working in January of 2018 appear to be caused by personal life events given the recommendation for bereavement counselling in February and July of 2018. The fact that the worker’s level of stress only increased, while away from work, would appear to support this conclusion.
As a result of my analysis, I am unable to find that the worker’s mental stress arose out of and in the course of their employment. I find that the criteria required establishing entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress have not been met and entitlement remains denied.
CONCLUSION
I conclude:
Entitlement to Chronic Mental Stress remains denied.
Entitlement to Traumatic Mental Stress remains denied.
The worker’s objection is denied.
DATED November 30, 2022
D. Gowanlock
D. Gowanlock
Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division