NY appeals court says bus driver’s PTSD following vehicle attack not compensable

An appeals court in New York on Thursday dismissed a post-traumatic stress disorder claim filed by a bus driver who experienced an incident involving a man who had attacked her bus, finding that the event was not outside of the norm of issues faced by bus drivers in New York City.

A transit bus operator for 21 years with the Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Authority, the woman filed a claim for workers compensation benefits contending that she suffered from PTSD following an incident “wherein an unidentified man – unsuccessful in his attempt to board the bus she was driving while it was stopped at a red light – climbed onto the front bumper, pounded on the windshield and damaged a wiper blade and side mirror on the bus,” according to CV-23-0854, filed in State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department.

Following a claim denial, an independent medical examination, and the deposition of the woman’s physician, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that the claimant, who returned to work approximately three months after the incident, sustained a “work-related” mental injury.

On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the driver “failed to establish that the stress she experienced as a result of this incident was greater than that experienced by similarly situated bus operators.”

In affirming, the appellate court referred to the Board’s decision, which found that “the job responsibilities of a bus operator necessarily involve interacting with the general public… including unruly ones” and that “it is expected that bus operators could be exposed to unruly individuals and property damage to the vehicle.”

“We do not second-guess the Board’s factual determination that this type of incident is one that, as a bus operator, ‘claimant should reasonably and ordinarily be expected to encounter in [her] normal work environment,’ as it is supported by substantial evidence in the record,” the court wrote.

One of the five judges dissented, arguing that “the incident as described by the majority should not in any civilized society be deemed part of ‘the normal work environment’ of a transit bus operator. There is nothing “normal” about being victimized by such dangerous conduct.”