Tennessee: With PTSD Claim, Objective, Not Subjective, Test to Be Used In Determining If Stress Was Unusual

In a decision not yet designated for publication, Tennessee’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed a trial court’s denial of an employee’s claim for psychological injuries, depression and PTSD on the grounds that the stress the employee claimed caused his depression and PTSD was not unusual. The employee, a registered nurse who worked in psychiatric treatment units since 1986, contended the trial court should have applied a subjective standard, taking into account the employee’s individual, pre-existing mental or psychological condition which may have predisposed him to reacting to the particular stress. The appeals panel disagreed, indicating that was not the law in Tennessee. The panel reiterated a two-part test: (1) that the injury must stem from “‘an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus such as fright, shock, or excessive unexpected anxiety’”; and (2) “the event must be extraordinary in comparison to the stress ordinarily experienced by an employee in the same type of duty.” The panel added that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the stress to which the employee was exposed and which he alleged caused his injuries was not abnormal, extraordinary, or unusual when viewed under the objective standard.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis

See Ireton v. Horizon Mental Health Mgmt., LLC, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 19, 2016) 

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 44.05 

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site