The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation has denied a worker’s appeal for a traumatic onset psychological injury claim, ruling that a heated workplace exchange did not meet the definition of a traumatic event and that the worker’s psychological diagnosis did not arise from employment.
The appeal centred on an April 2017 incident where the worker alleged he was cornered in a kitchen by a co-worker during a staff meeting, with the co-worker pointing a finger in his face and making threatening comments.
The commission upheld the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) decision of June 6, 2024, which acknowledged the worker had an “adjustment disorder, unspecified” but concluded the workplace event did not meet the “but for” test of causation required for claim acceptance.
Incident details disputed
According to witness testimony gathered in a Special Investigations Unit report, the April 2017 incident involved a heated exchange between the worker and a co-worker during a morning meeting in the workplace kitchen.
One witness described the co-worker’s posture as “threatening” and recalled that the worker was “blocked in” by the kitchen counter, with the co-worker on the opposite side. However, testimonies varied on whether the co-worker pointed his finger in the worker’s face and the duration of the incident, with estimates ranging from “less than a minute” to “a good five minutes.”
The worker claimed the co-worker, who was described as a trained boxer, confronted him aggressively, stating “you don’t know what we do here, you don’t know how we do things.” The worker alleged a manager then walked him and the co-worker to the back door, “presuming so that the workers could [go] outside to a fight.”
Commission’s assessment of traumatic event
In its analysis, the commission found the kitchen encounter did not meet the policy definition of a traumatic event.
“We did not find an actual or threatened death or serious injury to the worker or others was present,” the panel wrote. “We find the witness descriptions of the encounter do not meet the examples provided in the policy of a specific, sudden and frightening event such as a victim of a robbery or hostage taking event or witnessing the death or severe injury of a co-worker.”
Instead, the commission characterized the incident as “a brief heated discussion that had physical separation between participants.”
Medical evidence and causation
The worker had a complex medical history, including cardiac surgery in 2014 that resulted in post-surgery delirium and PTSD, for which he received cognitive behavioral therapy. He was also dealing with marital issues and had been prescribed Wellbutrin.
A comprehensive psychological assessment conducted in October 2022 diagnosed the worker with “adjustment disorder, unspecified” but concluded that “the bullying and harassment in the workplace was only one contributor to the worker’s current psychological difficulties.”
Critical to the commission’s decision was the psychologist’s opinion regarding causation. “The psychologist was asked to provide an opinion whether, ‘but for’ the work-related incident/injury caused the psychological diagnosis. The psychologist indicated he did not believe the work-related stress was necessary to cause the psychological diagnosis,” the decision stated.
Pattern of workplace issues alleged
The worker described an ongoing pattern of workplace harassment spanning years, claiming there was a “group within the group” who were “making their own rules.” He alleged that after the 2017 incident, “the group started to pull away from him a bit and things just got worse and worse overtime.”
Examples of ongoing harassment included the co-worker parking “about two inches from the worker’s car, so that the worker could not get out,” and co-workers “peering around the corners and peeking into the worker’s office.”
The worker’s representative argued that the DRDRB decision was “flawed” and “lacks rationality,” failing to account for “the totality of the medical evidence.” The representative contended there was “a significant role of the work environment, that exacerbated the worker’s condition.”
Applicable policy considerations
Under WCB Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6, a psychiatric or psychological injury is only compensable when there is a confirmed diagnosis and the condition results from one of several specified scenarios, including traumatic onset following a workplace event.
The policy defines a traumatic event as “a direct personal experience of a work-related event or directly witnessing a work-related event that, reasonably and objectively assessed, is specific, sudden, frightening or shocking; and/or an actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or others or threat to one’s physical integrity.”
The commission noted that the “but for” test of causation requires that “work exposures were necessary for the accident and injury to occur. In other words, if not for the work exposures, the injury or disease would not have happened.”
Pre-existing conditions consideration
The worker’s representative also argued for claim acceptance based on an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. However, the commission rejected this argument, stating: “There is no evidence of an adjustment disorder diagnosis prior to the date of accident. As such, there is no evidence of pre-existing Adjustment Disorder condition that could have been aggravated by the April 2017 workplace event.”
A family physician had noted in February 2022 that the worker’s “anxiety-depression goes back to early childhood,” and the comprehensive psychological assessment indicated the worker “had suffered with anxiety as a youth” and “reportedly grew up in an abusive environment.”
Commission’s conclusion
In its conclusion, the three-member panel unanimously determined that the worker’s psychological diagnosis did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment.
“We relied on the Comprehensive Psychological Assessment report that reviewed the worker’s personal history, medical history and workplace interactions and accepted the examiner’s conclusion he did not believe that the worker’s workplace stress was necessary to cause the diagnosis,” the commission wrote.
The decision emphasized that while multiple factors may work in combination to cause an injury, work must be “a necessary factor” for the injury to be compensable. If the injury “would have happened anyway, regardless of the work factor, it is not compensable.”
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0189, 2025 CanLII 31355 (AB WCAC).
