A British Columbia healthcare worker has won her appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT) after claiming she developed a mental disorder as a result of intimidating and demeaning interactions with her manager during a graduated return to work (GRTW). The WCAT ruling found that the manager’s behaviour amounted to an abuse of authority and created significant workplace stress for the worker, who was recovering from a wrist injury.
The worker, a program support assistant, had initially been denied compensation by WorkSafeBC’s Review Division, which upheld a previous decision that her mental health issues did not arise out of her employment. However, the WCAT ruled that the worker was exposed to “significant work-related stressors” and that her mental disorder, diagnosed by a psychiatrist, was caused by her interactions with the manager, referred to in the ruling as Ms. X.
Events leading to the claim
The worker’s difficulties began when she returned to her job in late October 2022 after a year-long absence due to a wrist condition. Her return was supposed to follow a carefully planned GRTW under the supervision of healthcare professionals and her employer, but the worker testified that the plan was not adhered to, particularly by Ms. X.
During a meeting on October 31, 2022, Ms. X allegedly used an “aggressive and intimidating tone” towards the worker, leaving her feeling anxious and unsafe. The worker described Ms. X as glaring at her, crossing her arms, and accusing her of being responsible for regional job changes that had upset other staff. The worker stated that Ms. X’s behaviour caused her to feel “demeaned” and “betrayed.”
The tribunal noted that Ms. X interfered with the worker’s workstation setup, contradicting recommendations made by an ergonomic expert. The worker reported feeling stressed and anxious after the interactions, fearing that Ms. X’s goal was to isolate her in an office setting. This fear was further compounded by Ms. X’s insistence that the worker try different equipment that the worker found unsuitable for her medical condition.
The diagnosis and claim
In early 2024, the worker was assessed by Dr. Spivak, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed her with “another specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorder.” Although the worker had pre-existing anxiety, Dr. Spivak concluded that her workplace experiences were the predominant cause of her mental health deterioration. He found no other external factors that could account for the symptoms the worker was experiencing.
Dr. Spivak emphasized that the worker’s encounters with Ms. X were significant enough to trigger her mental disorder, a view that the WCAT panel accepted in its decision.
Abuse of authority
The tribunal’s ruling focused on whether the worker’s mental disorder was caused by work-related stressors and whether those stressors were significant enough to warrant compensation. The key issue was whether Ms. X’s actions amounted to legitimate management decisions or crossed the line into abusive behaviour.
The tribunal found that while Ms. X had the authority to make decisions about the worker’s GRTW and workstation, her conduct “amounted to, in my view, conduct that was in bad faith or an abuse of authority.” The ruling noted that Ms. X’s behaviour was both subjectively and objectively intimidating and threatening, contributing to a toxic work environment.
The tribunal pointed to the fact that Ms. X ignored recommendations from an ergonomic expert about the worker’s need for specific equipment, as well as Ms. X’s refusal to allow the worker to work at her previous location, where she felt more supported by her team. The tribunal accepted the worker’s testimony that Ms. X’s actions were intended to demean and intimidate her.
Additionally, the ruling cited evidence from a public health nurse, who described Ms. X’s conduct as “atrocious,” involving behaviours such as “eyeball rolling, constant interruptions, deflection, gaslighting,” and creating a “psychologically toxic work environment.” This external testimony was instrumental in supporting the worker’s claim that she was being bullied and harassed.
- Ruling and compensation
The tribunal ruled that the worker’s claim should be accepted for a mental disorder under section 135(1) of the Workers Compensation Act. It concluded that the worker’s significant work-related stressors were the predominant cause of her mental disorder, and that Ms. X’s actions were not protected under the employer-decision exclusion, which typically shields management decisions from being considered compensable stressors.
“The worker was exposed to significant work-related stressors on more than one occasion because of her dealings with Ms. X,” the ruling stated. “Ms. X’s conduct was excessive in intensity and/or duration from what is experienced in the normal pressures or tensions of a worker’s employment.”
As a result of the ruling, WorkSafeBC will determine the benefits payable to the worker. Additionally, the tribunal ordered the reimbursement of $2,165 for the independent medical examination (IME) report provided by Dr. Spivak, as well as travel expenses for the worker to attend the tribunal’s oral hearing.
The decision offers some relief to the worker, who expressed a desire to end the stressful ordeal she had been experiencing in her interactions with Ms. X. “I just want this to end,” she wrote in an email to a co-worker.
For more information, see A2302499 (Re), 2024 CanLII 84876 (BC WCAT).
