762 S.E.2d 800
Va. Ct. App.2014Background
- Claimant (UPS delivery driver since 1995) encountered a longtime customer, Barbara Fassett, lying on her porch on January 7, 2013 and observed her face bloodied and mutilated by gunshot wounds. He called 911, vomited, cried, and could not complete deliveries that day.
- Claimant filed for workers’ compensation alleging PTSD from the traumatic observation and sought medical and temporary total disability benefits from January 10–June 2, 2013.
- Employer disputed compensability (arguing the event did not arise out of employment) and also raised a separate marketing-of-work-capacity defense (not before the court on appeal).
- Medical providers at Adolescent and Family Health Center diagnosed claimant with PTSD and restricted him from working; employer’s initial doctor diagnosed situational anxiety and prescribed medication.
- A deputy commissioner denied compensability; the full Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, finding the sight was a sufficiently "sudden shock or fright" in the course of employment to cause a compensable psychological injury.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the court affirmed the commission, finding credible evidence supported that the unexpected, gruesome scene was shocking, traumatic, and outside the range of claimant’s job expectations and that the medical diagnosis of PTSD was unrebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether witnessing the gruesome scene constituted a compensable "sudden shock or fright" producing a psychological injury | Prince: The unexpected sight of a longtime customer murdered on his route was shocking, traumatic, and caused PTSD | UPS: Brief observation (5–10 sec) of the body was insufficient; event did not arise out of employment expectations | Held for claimant — commission reasonably found the sight was sufficiently shocking and compensable |
| Whether temporal duration of observation defeats compensability | Prince: Even a short but traumatic observation (plus the ensuing hour at scene) can cause PTSD | UPS: The brevity of the observation shows it was not a sufficiently shocking precipitating event | Held: Court declines to impose a temporal requirement; duration did not bar compensability |
| Whether facts learned later at the scene (e.g., second body) can be considered in assessing shock | Prince: The initial discovery alone was sufficiently shocking; later facts do not diminish that shock | UPS: Commission relied on details not known at first sight, improperly augmenting the precipitating event | Held: Commission relied on claimant’s immediate observations and 911 call; later information did not underpin the compensability finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Mills v. Hagood, 177 Va. 204, 13 S.E.2d 291 (Va. 1941) (psychological injury compensable when directly traced to sudden work-related flash/shock)
- Chesterfield Cnty. v. Dunn, 9 Va. App. 475, 389 S.E.2d 180 (Va. Ct. App. 1990) (purely psychological injury compensable only if related to physical injury or obvious sudden shock/fright)
- Anthony v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 36 Va. App. 98, 548 S.E.2d 273 (Va. Ct. App. 2001) (events must be shocking, frightening, traumatic, catastrophic, and unexpected; expected occupational risks may negate compensability)
- Daniel Const. Co. v. Tolley, 24 Va. App. 70, 480 S.E.2d 145 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (explosion without warning deemed sufficient precipitating event)