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

 

Depression after business failure doesn't warrant benefits

In New Hampshire, a mental injury for a business failure taken in good faith is not compensable.

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

Case name: Appeal of Letellier, No. 2010-795 (N.H. 12/15/11).

Ruling: The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a business owner was not entitled to benefits because the stress he suffered after his business failed was not an injury.

What it means: In New Hampshire, a mental injury for a business failure taken in good faith is not compensable.

Summary: A business owner's steel manufacturing plant was destroyed by a fire and temporarily relocated. The cost of rebuilding the facility exceeded budget projections and the company floundered. Later, the business was closed. The owner developed hypertension and major depression, and his doctors attributed the ailments to the failure of his business and other life stresses. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming he had mental stress and severe depression. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that he was not entitled to benefits.

The court explained that a statute does not permit compensation for a mental injury caused by a disciplinary action or "any similar action" taken in good faith by an employer. The court considered the meaning of the term "any similar action" and said that the possibility of a business failure was a normal condition of employment that was often precipitated by poor company performance or general economic conditions. The court found the phrase encompassed a business failure.

The court explained that interpreting the phrase not to include a business failure would lead to the absurd result that employees laid off for a business failure would not receive benefits while an owner would be eligible.

The court mentioned that the owner's injuries did not arise from the performance of personnel duties that were part of his job. Also, there was nothing to suggest that the failure of the business involved bad faith. Therefore, the owner's depression was excluded from the statutory definition of "mental injury."

A dissenting judge opined that the owner suffered from a cumulative stress injury that was caused by the fact that the business was failing, not its ultimate failure. The judge said that a mental injury suffered by the owner of a business that was failing economically should be compensable.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

January 23, 2012

Copyright 2012© 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.