APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER:
20250047
OBJECTING PARTY:
WORKER
RESPONDENT PARTY:
EMPLOYER (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING:
HEARING IN WRITING
HEARD by:
DATED:
J MANGOFF, APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER
FEBRUARY 13, 2025
ISSUE
The worker objects to the following decisions:
The Case Manager’s June 26, 2024, decision that denied entitlement for a traumatic mental stress injury.
The Case Manager’s October 17, 2024, decision that denied entitlement for a chronic mental stress injury.
The method of resolution was initially determined to be an oral hearing; however, upon review of the information on record and after having spoken to the worker there was no additional information that would be provided. As such, it was agreed this appeal will proceed with a hearing in writing.
BACKGROUND
A claim was established by the worker who is a Principal with a school board where the worker has been employed since September 5, 2001. The date of accident was determined to be May 30, 2024. The worker claimed mental stress reporting they were harassed by a parent of a student that attends the school. The worker described multiple stressors that contributed to their mental stress injury which all related to this parent.
The worker sought medical attention on May 30, 2024, and was diagnosed with an acute adjustment disorder that they related to the actions of this parent. The Case Manager reviewed the information provided and found the events were not considered a substantial work-related stressor. As such, entitlement for chronic mental stress injury was denied.
On October 17, 2024, entitlement was considered under the Traumatic Mental Stress policy, and it was found the circumstances of this claim did not meet the entitlement criteria. As such, entitlement was denied for a traumatic mental stress injury.
The worker does not agree with the decision rendered and requests the payment of loss of earnings (LOE) benefits be paid for the time off work from April 10, 2024, to June 30, 2024, from
September 3, 2024, to October 7, 2024. In addition, the lost time on October 9, 11, 15, 17 and 23, 2024, that occurred during their return-to-work plan.
The employer is not participating in this appeal; however, their report of injury corroborates the statement provided by the worker and there are no concerns noted about the claim.
As the decision remained unchanged, the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further review and consideration.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Manual
Published
15-03-14 – Chronic Mental Stress
February 2, 2024
15-03-02 – Traumatic Mental Stress
February 29, 2024
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all the available information, legislation, relevant operational policies, and any submissions provided in reaching this decision. After having conducted a thorough review of the circumstances of this claim, I find the evidence supports granting the worker’s appeal. The following is a summary of my observations and findings.
The worker provided a written submission outlining the incidents that occurred which they reported to have caused their mental stress injury.
On Friday, April 5, 2024, the worker called a parent regarding their child who was not wearing shoes and the parent was irritated about the call. After a short discussion about calls from the school about their children, the parent was angry and hung up the phone. The parent called back and when speaking with the principal, was yelling and abusive on the phone. The worker described the parent stated they did not want to talk to them but wanted to talk to their son and that their daughter be in the room and that she was coming to pick up her children. The parent demanded the children be on the phone until picked up. The worker then advised that they do not control who they can speak to, and the parent said that the worker better keep them on the phone or else. The worker asked if they were threatening him and advise the parent this conversation was not respectful and was abusive ending the call.
The parent, later that same day, arrived with two phones recording everything and putting it on live social media. There were also two other people on the phone yelling and swearing and asking questions. The worker described that they began insulting them over the phone. The parent then said they could not be trusted with their children and the school had been horrible since they became principal. This continued and ultimately the police were called. The parent spoke with the police officer and demanded their children’s belongings. Their belongings were gathered and, on the way out, the parent threatened that
their son has everything recorded on their phone and that the worker better watch out. The police officers told the parent that they needed to leave.
From April 7, 2024, the worker reported that this parent continued to harass and defame them on social media. This included:
Harassing messages, images, and videos on various social media accounts and on parent Facebook account. The parent continued to say that they were horrible principal, cannot believe that their son was left alone in the worker’s office, and how disgusting the principal is. It was noted the parent Council remove posting and blocked the parent’s account.
The worker stated the parent also posted a picture of them and used derogatory words to describe them.
The parent also posted that the worker was punishing their children for not following the rules and suspending them for no reason.
The parent had called friends of their daughter, who was also student at the school, and recorded their negative responses about the principal. The parent went on and posted these comments stating the worker was in trouble and that they are trying to get them fired.
A harassment complaint was filed with the police and the parent was advised to cease and desist. However, the parent continued posting about the worker without mentioning their name.
The parent called the Children’s Aid Society reporting that their son was physically assaulted at school. The worker indicated that this was found to be untrue.
Ultimately, the School Board issued a trespassing order against the parent.
The worker was assessed on May 30, 2024, by Dr. P who diagnosed the worker with an acute adjustment reaction. Further, it was noted the worker had a pre-existing generalized anxiety disorder.
On October 2, 2024, Dr. P wrote a letter requesting the WSIB reevaluate the worker’s claim. Dr. P noted the worker initially presented on April 10, 2024, in a mental health crisis following repeated perceived bullying incidents while in their role as a school principal. The worker was diagnosed with an acute adjustment disorder and was advised to stop working while having treatment.
Entitlement for a Traumatic Mental Stress Injury
Operational policy 15-03-02 provides entitlement guidelines for claims for traumatic mental stress. This policy 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. For information relating to claims 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 decision-maker, after assessing and weighing all relevant and available evidence, including any provided by the worker, co-workers, supervisory staff, or others, is satisfied that the event(s) more likely than not occurred, and
the event(s) is/are generally accepted as being traumatic.
Traumatic events include, but are not limited to:
witnessing a fatality or a horrific accident
witnessing or being the object of an armed robbery
witnessing or being the object of a hostage-taking
being the object of physical violence
being the object of death threats
being the object of threats of physical violence where the worker believes the threats are serious and harmful to self or others (e.g., bomb threats or confronted with a weapon)
being the object of workplace harassment that includes physical violence or threats of physical violence (e.g., the escalation of verbal abuse into traumatic physical abuse), and
being the object of workplace harassment that includes being placed in a life-threatening or potentially life-threatening situation (e.g., tampering with safety equipment; causing the worker to do something dangerous).
On June 26, 2024, the Case Manager reviewed entitlement and found the evidence does not support granting entitlement for a traumatic mental stress injury. As outlined above in operational policy, for entitlement to be granted as a traumatic mental stress injury the events must be objectively traumatic. The circumstances of this claim, in my view, did not identify any objectively traumatic events and as such, the worker does not have entitlement for a traumatic mental stress condition.
Chronic Mental Stress Entitlement
Operational policy 15-03-14 provides entitlement guidelines for claims for chronic mental stress. This policy 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.
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 decision-maker must be able to identify the event(s) which are alleged to have caused the chronic mental stress. This means the decision-maker, after assessing and weighing all relevant and available evidence, including any provided by the worker, co-workers, supervisory staff, or others, is satisfied that the event(s) more likely than not occurred.
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.
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 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.
Diagnostic requirements
Before any chronic mental stress claim can be adjudicated, there must be a diagnosis in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which may include, but is not limited to,
acute stress disorder
posttraumatic stress disorder
adjustment disorder, or
an anxiety or depressive disorder.
As outlined above, the worker was assessed by their physician and diagnosed with an acute adjustment disorder which meets the diagnostic criteria outlined in operational policy.
The worker described events which were clearly identifiable. These were corroborated by the employer and their physician, and I am satisfied that the events more likely than not occurred.
The Case Manager denied entitlement as the evidence did not establish the worker’s medical condition was caused by a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
I considered the events described by the worker and while I note the worker is a principal at a school and will have regular communication with parents, the interaction was not what was typically expected. In my view, the actions of the parent were a conduct a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive. As such, I have concluded the worker was exposed to a substantial work-related stressor.
The worker was diagnosed with an acute adjustment disorder which the physician attributed to the interaction with this parent and in my view, the interaction arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
After considering the circumstances of this claim, I am 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 the diagnosed acute adjustment disorder. As such, entitlement has been accepted for a chronic mental stress injury with the diagnosis of acute adjustment disorder.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the following:
The worker is not entitled to benefits for a traumatic mental stress injury.
The worker has met the criteria to grant entitlement under the chronic mental stress policy and therefore, entitlement is allowed for an acute adjustment disorder.
The worker's objection is allowed. The worker is claiming payment of LOE benefits. This issue is left to the discretion of the operating area as lost time information needs to be confirmed and additional medical information may be required.
DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2025
J Mangoff
Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division