What constitutes 'psychological injury' in WCB claims?

A recent Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation decision underscores the strict standards for psychological injury claims, reminding employers that not all workplace stressors qualify as compensable injuries.  

The ruling, which denied a worker’s appeal, highlights the importance of objective evidence, employer documentation, and clear distinctions between everyday workplace pressures and traumatic incidents. 

“Traumatic onset psychological injury is compensable when it is an emotional reaction in response to a single traumatic work-related event, or a cumulative series of traumatic, work-related events that were experienced by the worker,” says Joseph Oppenheim, employment lawyer with Carbert Waite in Calgary. 

“They won't be able to successfully claim for the manifestation of an unrelated psychological issue – whether it be an injury or simply mental illness... simply because they go to work and they get effectively triggered, or something causes their symptoms to manifest.” 

Objective evidence of workplace psychological injury 

One of the main reasons the Appeals Commission denied the worker’s claim was a lack of objective evidence connecting their diagnosed major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety Disorder to a workplace event that would meet WCB’s definition of an accident. 

As stated in the decision, the employee, a cashier, had claimed that several instances of bullying and harassment had caused her “severe depression, anxiety and anger due to being frequently mistreated and bullied while on the job.” A registered psychologist diagnosed her with generalized anxiety disorder and a major depressive disorder, which the employee unsuccessfully disputed in this appeal. 

“In any claim that a worker makes for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Program, the worker has to actually bring forth objective evidence to demonstrate, or to prove to the Workers’ Compensation Board that something happened at work that caused her to be disabled,” says Oppenheim. 

“They weighed it all and they looked at it as objectively as they could, and they found that objectively, what this worker experienced was not traumatic, it was what she experienced. They were examples of the type of, as they put it, normal pressures and tensions of employment.” 

This underscores that the burden of proof is on the worker to establish that the injury was caused by workplace conditions and not personal stressors or pre-existing conditions.  

Differentiating between workplace stress and compensable injuries 

Not every workplace dispute or interpersonal conflict is considered traumatic under WCB guidelines; as Laura Dunnigan, employment lawyer with Mathews, Dinsdale and Clark in Calgary, explains, the Alberta Worker’s Compensation Act specifies that an injury must be assessed “reasonably and objectively” to determine if it qualifies for compensation. 

"The board is not looking at subjective intentions of the complainant,” says Dunnigan.  

“They are looking at objectively whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would find those interactions aggressive, threatening, bullying, etc.” 

Dunnigan explains that this is a key distinction in psychological injury claims. 

“A very important thing to take away from this is they are not looking at what a worker personally perceives as a threat to their physical integrity. The policy application stipulates that there must be a reasonably and objectively assessed fear.” 

For HR professionals, Dunnigan says this means that even if an employee feels harassed or bullied, WCB will determine objectively whether those workplace interactions were severe enough to be compensable under policy. 

Workplace psychological injury and WCB’s ‘but for’ test 

A critical aspect of psychological injury claims is the causal connection between the workplace event and the diagnosed condition. To help determine where these oft-uncertain lines are, Oppenheim points to the “but for” test – a legal standard WCB uses to assess whether the worker’s injury would have occurred without the workplace event. 

“That's language borrowed from old tort law, personal injury law, negligence law, which determines causation by asking the question: ‘But for the event, would the person have the injury complained of?” he explains. 

“The board will not agree to compensate a worker simply because they are experiencing anxiety or depression, or their anxiety or depression gets exacerbated because of something that happened at work. The thing that happened at work has to be objectively an accident.” 

In this decision, the panel found that although the worker experienced stress and claimed workplace harassment, the events did not meet the standard of a traumatic incident, and the stress would have been experienced whether or not it was triggered by workplace events. Rather, the board ruled that what she experienced were the normal pressures of employment-related interactions. 

Investigation and documentation: key employer responsibilities 

As Dunnigan explains, due diligence is key: proper documentation and timely investigations can make or break a WCB case.  

“I think what was really important in this case for the employer is that they had very good, documented investigation... [and] evidence of what steps they took as soon as they became aware of all of her complaints.” 

In this case, the employee had alleged harassment against another employee (among several other incidents with other co-workers) – a male worker she said had touched her and stared at her inappropriately. It was found that his behaviour was warranted because of a disability – he had a hearing impairment so communicated differently – but the employer still made efforts to separate the two workers, a move which Dunnigan says helped its defense. 

“They were prepared to remove any incidents in the future by not having them work together,” she explains. “So it wasn't a repeated, ongoing example of anything. They took steps.” 

Even if harassment claims and others like them are found to be unwarranted in investigations, Dunnigan advises employers to still be vigilant in addressing such issues as they arise as a best practice.  

“If you can find easy ways to do that, whether you're legally required to make those changes or not, why wouldn't you?” she says.  

“It can make your workplace run much smoother, and it might result in good faith with the person who is on the other side of the complainant. … It is an easy way to get in front of somebody saying, ‘Well, I've experienced this on a prolonged, ongoing basis.’ There was no example of that in this case, because they were able to separate them.”  

Managing psychological injury claims effectively 

One often-overlooked aspect of WCB claims, Oppenheim reminds employers, is that once a claim is denied, the worker has no other legal recourse under Alberta law.  

“Interestingly enough, there's a section in the Workers’ Compensation Act that says, if you are injured at work, your only recourse is WCB,” he says. “Even if WCB denies your claim, you can't go out and sue separately.” 

However, given the high evidentiary standard involved with psychological injury claims, HR professionals and employers should be proactive in handling workplace stress incidents and ensuring compliance with WCB policies, says Dunnigan. 

For example, the employers in this case had credible witness statements for each of the incidences of claimed harassment or abuse, further contributing to a strong case.  

“Documents are like candy for lawyers. They are the best way to defend yourself against these types of claims — if and when they arise,” Dunnigan says. 

“I think people are surprised with how much they might have to be able to produce. I think they should get comfortable with taking seriously these types of complaints, doing proper investigations, providing outcome letters or overviews to the complainant and the respondent and implementing changes as they need to move forward, and having a trail of that process to produce if you're challenged on it at a later date.”