Washington v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
11 A.3d 48
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Rodney Washington, a Pennsylvania State Police field trooper, served in the Forensic Services Unit (FSU) as an alternate member beginning in 1994 and as a full-time member in 2003.
- Washington investigated homicides as part of the FSU, including two homicide investigations and the 1998 murder/suicide case involving a father who burned his infant daughter.
- On December 31, 2003, Washington investigated the Baby Jane Doe case, photographing the burn barrel, infant, surrounding area, and later attending the autopsy; he stopped work on November 24, 2005.
- Washington subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder, with a PTSD diagnosis dated December 28, 2005, and filed a workers’ compensation claim on October 26, 2006 seeking benefits for a work-related PTSD injury linked to the Baby Jane Doe investigation.
- A workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found the Baby Jane Doe investigation was normal and routine for an FSU member and denied the claim; the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed; Washington appealed to Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; the Board’s and WCJ’s credibility determinations and evidentiary rulings were at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury was caused by an abnormal working condition | Washington contends the Baby Jane Doe investigation was unusually stressful for an FSU trooper | Employer/Board argued the events were normal for FSU work and not abnormal | No abnormal working condition found; events were routine for FSU troopers. |
| Whether preexisting nonwork-related conditions were properly considered | Washington argues preexisting mental disorders aggravated by employment are compensable | Court rejected reliance on preexisting conditions absent abnormal working conditions | Preexisting conditions were not compensable due to lack of abnormal working condition. |
| Whether the wcj erred in excluding photographs as evidence | Washington sought admission of crime scene/autopsy photos to prove abnormal conditions | Board found photos cumulative and not probative of abnormal conditions | WCJ did not abuse discretion; photographs properly excluded as cumulative. |
| What is the proper standard of review for abuse of discretion and credibility | Washington urged de novo review of credibility and evidence | Court deferential to WCJ’s credibility findings | Appellate review deferential; substantial evidence supported WCJ/Board findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payes v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Commonwealth of PA/State Police), 5 A.3d 855 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (police work stress acknowledging inherent stress but need abnormal condition for benefits)
- Rydzewski v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 767 A.2d 13 (Pa.Cmwlth.) (police work stress and abnormal condition standard discussion)
- Young v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (New Sewickley Police Department), 737 A.2d 317 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (stresses police work; abnormal condition requires extraordinary events beyond normal duties)
- Clowes v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 162 Pa.Cmwlth.583 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (abnormal condition analysis in police contexts)
- City of Philadelphia v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Brasten), 682 A.2d 875 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (establishing abnormal conditions in psychic injury cases; later affirmed by supreme court)