Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Failure to prove employer knowledge of injury dooms clerk's claim

In Idaho, an employer has actual knowledge of a psychological workplace injury if the employee also suffered "violence to the physical structure of her body" and the employer was aware of the physical injury.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Gibson v. Ada County Sheriff's Office, No. 34368-2009-81 (Idaho 06/08/09).

Ruling: The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that a records clerk's claim for benefits was barred because she failed to show that her employer had actual knowledge of her injury.

What it means: In Idaho, an employer has actual knowledge of a psychological workplace injury if the employee also suffered "violence to the physical structure of her body" and the employer was aware of the physical injury.

Summary: A former sheriff's office records clerk alleged she suffered from post- traumatic stress disorder after she was investigated for a payroll discrepancy. Detectives interviewed her and she was eventually terminated. Two years later, a psychiatrist diagnosed her with PTSD due to the interviews. He stated her condition should be considered physical as well as mental because it involved changes to brain structures. The court noted Idaho's law requires a psychological injury to be both physical and a mental to be compensable. It also requires that an employer have "considerable knowledge" of the physical injury if the employee fails to notify the employer she was injured. The employer argued that it did not have knowledge of a physical injury arising out of the interviews, as the clerk denied she suffered any physical injury until the psychiatrist's diagnosis two years later. The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the denial of her claim, holding that the employer did not have the requisite knowledge of a physical injury to excuse her failure to give proper notice.

The clerk also claimed she suffered anxiety, depression, panic attacks, poor memory, and the inability to focus. She argued that her employer knew that she suffered a "psychological workplace injury" and that she had manifested symptoms. The court pointed out it did not matter whether the employer knew about her psychological symptoms. The pertinent inquiry was whether it had considerable knowledge of "violence to the physical structure of her body." It noted the clerk did not make the "brain injury" claim until over two years later, and ruled the employee was not entitled to benefits. The panel also said that the worker could be subjected to penalties for fraud.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

July 16, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.