Abnormal Working Conditions Found For First Responder in PA Workers’ Comp Claim

As we have discussed previously on this blog, physical injuries in Pennsylvania are treated differently than mental ones.  Provided that a physical injury was suffered in the scope and course of the job, benefits should be payable.  Mental injuries, though, have a different and additional requirement – the injury must have resulted from “abnormal working conditions.”

There should not be much surprise, then, that many cases have dealt with whether a particular fact pattern reaches the standard of “abnormal working conditions.”  This determination is very dependent on the exact facts of each case.  And, of course, what would be expected in that particular job.  What a police office, fire fighter or EMT might expect on a normal day at work is very different from that of an accountant, warehouse worker or a secretary.

Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dealt with this issue in Ganley v. Upper Darby Township (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board).  Here, the injured worker was a firefighter/EMT, who was forced to perform CPR on infants twice in less than two years (with neither infant surviving).  As a result of those events, the injured worker suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

After hearing the testimony of the injured worker. and several fact witnesses, the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the Claim Petition, finding that the events described by the injured worker do not constitute an “abnormal working condition” for his job.  Upon appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB).

However, upon further appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the WCJ, finding that the facts, as found by the WCJ, do in fact reach the level of an abnormal working condition, and the Claim Petition should be granted.

The WCJ had focused on the testimony of an employer witness, stating that performing CPR, even on an infant, and having a patient die in your presence, were all normal parts of this job.   The Court analyzed further, finding that while having to perform CPR, even on an infant, is a normal and expected part of the job the injured worker held, the specific facts here – performing CPR on two infants within 16 months, with neither surviving, has to be seen as abnormal.  This specific sequence of events was not normal.

Notably, a strong concurring opinion called for the elimination of the entire “abnormal working conditions” standard.  Since this was a creation of the Courts (and not found in the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act), the Judge said, it can be removed by the Courts.  Specifically, it was eloquently stated, the mental injuries “are no less real or disabling than physical injuries merely because we cannot see them.”

Also of import, as we have discussed previously, the Pennsylvania legislature has recently enacted a law removing the requirement of “abnormal working conditions” to establish a mental/mental claim (mental injury from a mental stimulus) for first responders.  However, going under that law limits the period of benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks.  Unfortunately, a patient with PTSD has no such automatic recovery, making that law somewhat less than ideal.