on UnsplashA protection service officer who claimed compensation for a mental disorder related to alleged workplace bullying and harassment has been denied a referral for permanent disability benefits, following a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT).
The worker had initially received wage-loss benefits for an adjustment disorder with anxiety, which the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), operating as WorkSafeBC, accepted as being caused by a co-worker’s comments accusing him of drug use. However, the Board later determined that wage-loss benefits were no longer payable as of April 30, 2023, as the worker had returned to his pre-injury job duties and did not have a permanent disability.
The worker, who represented himself, appealed the Board’s decision to WCAT after the Review Division upheld it. The employer did not participate in the appeal.
Background
The worker reported that in April and May 2021, a co-worker (Mr. X) made disparaging remarks about him, including accusations of drug use, and also filed conduct complaints against him with the employer. The worker filed his own complaint against Mr. X.
On September 28, 2021, the Board accepted the worker’s claim for an adjustment disorder caused by the false accusation of drug use. However, the Board determined that the employer’s investigation into the allegations was excluded from compensation under paragraph 135(1)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act, which precludes claims for mental disorders arising from employment-related decisions.
The worker began receiving wage-loss benefits starting June 10, 2021, after missing his first shift. By May 30, 2023, the Board concluded that he had recovered sufficiently to return to work and was not entitled to long-term disability benefits. The Review Division upheld this decision on December 18, 2023.
WCAT findings
WCAT focused on whether the worker was entitled to a referral to Long Term Disability Services (LTDS) for permanent disability benefits related to his mental disorder. The tribunal reviewed extensive medical evidence, testimony from the worker, and reports from healthcare providers, including his family doctor, a psychologist, a counsellor, and an occupational therapist.
Medical documentation indicated that the worker had a history of anxiety related to workplace conflicts, including a prior adjustment disorder in 2018. A psychologist who assessed the worker in September 2021 diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder and recommended temporary work restrictions, including avoiding Mr. X and attending counselling sessions. The psychologist confirmed that the worker’s distress stemmed primarily from the accusation of drug use, rather than the employer’s investigation.
Throughout 2022 and early 2023, the worker received treatment for anxiety related to his work environment. Reports from his counsellor and occupational therapist described concerns about his ability to return to work, particularly due to a lack of trust in his employer and lingering anxiety about workplace interactions. However, as of early 2023, treatment providers, including his family doctor and a counsellor, noted that his condition had stabilized. By March 2023, the worker reported being mentally prepared to return to work.
The worker returned to work in September 2023 but testified that he continued to experience symptoms and faced multiple disciplinary actions, which he believed were in retaliation for his previous mental disorder claim. WCAT, however, emphasized that its jurisdiction was limited to assessing whether the worker’s 2021 mental disorder had resolved or become permanent, and it was not in a position to evaluate any new claims arising from his post-2023 workplace experiences.
Conclusion
WCAT denied the worker’s appeal, affirming the Review Division’s decision that he was not entitled to a referral to LTDS for consideration of permanent disability benefits. The tribunal found that the worker’s adjustment disorder likely resolved and that his ongoing symptoms were more closely related to post-2021 workplace incidents rather than the original compensable event.
Additionally, WCAT declined to reimburse the worker’s travel expenses for attending the oral hearing, noting that he was unsuccessful in his appeal and that there were no other apparent grounds for expense reimbursement.
For more information, see A2400085 (Re), 2025 CanLII 9844 (BC WCAT).
