New Brunswick worker seeks workers’ comp benefits related to mental stress
Back in 2025, a New Brunswick worker alleged that a meeting she had with HR precipitated her departure from the workplace and need for workers’ comp benefits.
However, the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal disagreed, finding that the events described did not constitute a "traumatic event" under the Workers' Compensation Act.
As a result, on April 7, 2026, chairperson Chelsea Seale denied the claim.
The worker was appealing a May 7, 2025 decision from the Decision Review Office (DRO) of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick, which denied her application for compensation benefits related to ongoing mental stress. It determined that the described events did not meet the criteria of an accident as required by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Claims of bullying, harassment
The worker had alleged bullying, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace, and told the commission's adjudicator that as far back as 2023, she felt she was not well-received at work. The worker alleged a pattern of mistreatment that involved a "constant lack of acknowledgement, dismissal, and setting bars way more than for regular employees."
On March 5, 2025, she says she had a panic attack following a meeting with HR that she says involved derogatory characterizations of her personality, including labels such as "bully," "suspicious" and "attitude issues."
She reported that she felt mistreated during this meeting, which worsened her anxiety, writing that since then, “I am unable to function at work without feel scared. I feel like my voice doesn’t matter and my jaws clench."
The worker stopped working on May 9, 2025.
Workers’ comp and ‘traumatic events’
Under New Brunswick's Workers' Compensation Act, mental stress is compensable only when it results from an "acute reaction to a traumatic event." Because the worker had not been diagnosed with PTSD, the tribunal applied the "reasonable person standard": Would a reasonable person, without regard to the worker's personal perceptions, regard the event as objectively traumatic?
Policy 21-103, cited directly in the ruling, is unambiguous: "Normal work pressures or decisions of the worker's employer relating to the management and monitoring of the worker's employment do not qualify as a traumatic event."
Chairperson Seale found that the events described, including bullying, harassment, derogation, and a perceived toxic workplace, fell short of that standard. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a precedent cited by the tribunal, had noted that "not one of these decisions has found compensation to be payable as a result of interpersonal conflicts within the workplace."
Medical professionals cite 'distress’
Her family physician, Sayeda Mohiuddin, documented the worker's account: "Bullied by coworker. Then her situation was mishandled by senior causing her social anxiety and panic attack. Couldn't handle the situation and stopped working on May 9th."
And while her experience does not meet the definition of traumatic per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria, he said, "her experiences do meet the definition of psychological trauma, which is a personal experience of emotional distress, resulting from an event that overwhelms the capacity to digest it emotionally.”
Emergency room physician Shelley O'Blenis Caines, who treated the worker on multiple occasions, wrote: "I feel she has indeed suffered a relapse and intensification of her pre-existing mental health issues with the current work issue. She is quite debilitated by tics, lack of sleep and preservation of thoughts of returning to work. She should be considered for WHSCC benefits based on what I have witnessed.”
Lack of info from qualified professional
Chairperson Seale, however, found the record insufficient on an alternative basis. Setting aside the traumatic event question, Policy 21-103 requires specifically psychological or psychiatric information from a psychologist or psychiatrist to establish an acute reaction.
Neither Mohiuddin nor O'Blenis Caines was a psychologist or psychiatrist, and no such specialist had provided a diagnosis. As a result, "there is no information from a qualified mental health professional concerning the appellant's diagnosis. The information I do have is primarily based on the appellant's self-reporting,” said Seale, who denied the appeal on both grounds.
