High court upholds PTSD claim and issues penalty

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a finding that a Minneapolis police officer had a compensable claim for post-traumatic stress disorder and was entitled to an additional penalty award because the city’s denial was frivolous.

At the same time, the high court vacated part of a Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals decision that “other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder” is a compensable and consequential injury of PTSD, as documented Wednesday in A24-1205.

The officer, who joined the Minneapolis Police Department in 1999, estimated that he responded to between 30 and 50 homicide calls over the course of his career as a police officer. He also said he had been present for about a dozen officer-involved shootings and responded to a mass-shooting event.

In June 2021, his therapist diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and recommended he stop working as a police officer. The man notified the city that he was unable to work because of PTSD and filed a workers compensation claim.

The city denied liability and did not investigate his claim. Instead, it argued that the officer did not qualify for the presumption that PTSD is compensable for law enforcement workers by arguing that he had a history of mental health conditions that predated the city’s decision to hire him.

The workers compensation judge found that contradicted city records showing the man had passed two pre-employment mental health exams.

A psychologist hired by the city submitted a report saying he did not satisfy the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis or any other mental health condition in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Another independent exam conducted at the request of the officer’s attorney resulted in a report saying he didn’t presently meet the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis, but it speculated that that could be a result of his mental health treatment. The psychologist said medical records indicated he had previously met all the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis.

A workers compensation judge found the testimony of the second psychologist more persuasive than that of the city’s psychologist and ruled that the officer was entitled to benefits. The judge also said the city’s denial was frivolous and awarded a 30% penalty.

The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed, but directed the compensation judge to make additional findings about an additional claim for “other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder.” The city appealed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court said the WCCA did not err in affirming the judge’s finding that the officer suffered from PTSD and that a workers compensation judge is authorized to decide which expert’s testimony is more credible and persuasive.

The high court also agreed that the judge’s decision to award a penalty was an appropriate exercise of discretion. It also said the WCCA’s determination that the officer is entitled to compensation benefits for PTSD rendered any decision regarding the merits of the OSTD claim unnecessary.

WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.