A Nova Scotia worker with post-traumatic stress disorder has successfully appealed a decision that reduced his benefits after he refused a customer service position, with a tribunal finding the job was not suitable given his psychological condition.
The Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal of the former correctional officer who sustained a compensable psychological injury from traumatic workplace incidents. The worker was diagnosed with PTSD, major depressive disorder and panic disorder, and received a 25% permanent impairment rating.
After moving to Alberta in October 2022 for different employment, the worker was offered accommodation in July 2023 for a Clerk 3 Customer Service Representative position with Service Nova Scotia. When he declined the role, the Workers’ Compensation Board reduced his extended earnings-replacement benefit based on estimated earnings from that position.
Worker’s concerns about proposed role
The worker testified the customer service role would increase his anxiety in what he described as a “fast-paced” environment. He expressed concerns about interacting with the general public, saying people can have “unpredictable moods and personalities” and he wouldn’t know how to handle them.
The proposed workplace created anxiety for the worker as a “confined space,” and he found it “nerve-wracking” that co-workers could move behind him at his workstation. Despite assurances about serving customers one at a time, he remained concerned about the busy environment.
The worker was particularly troubled by the job’s proximity to the correctional facility where he worked, fearing encounters with former inmates. He testified that seeing a former inmate could trigger a panic attack, and if the person became aggressive, he wasn’t confident he could stop himself from “acting with force.”
“One of the primary reasons he moved away was so that he would be removed of the possibility of encountering a former inmate or other triggers of his traumas,” the decision noted.
Medical evidence supports worker’s position
Dr. Gosse, a psychiatrist who assessed the worker twice by telephone, provided crucial medical evidence. He diagnosed “PTSD in partial remission, with generalized anxiety, anxiety attacks and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.”
Regarding the customer service role, Dr. Gosse stated: “Based on the file information and the examinee’s self-reported symptoms and functional difficulties in public and unsecured environments, I feel the position of Customer Service Representative is unsuitable for him.”
The psychiatrist noted the worker “describes residual posttraumatic stress symptoms particularly anxiety based ones. His uncomfortable around people and does not feel safe. He would have difficulty dealing with a difficult or aggressive customer.”
Dr. Gosse warned that working in such an environment would cause the worker to “decline in functional status with exacerbation of pre-existing symptoms. This would represent adverse consequences for the worker’s health either immediately or in the long-term.”
Employer challenges medical opinion
The employer’s representative argued Dr. Gosse’s opinion was improper, claiming he lacked expertise in customer service jobs and had only a “superficial understanding” of the Clerk 3 position. They contended the psychiatrist was simply accepting the worker’s feelings without independent analysis.
The employer noted the worker had successfully worked in a financial professional role in Alberta, arguing this demonstrated his ability to perform customer service work. They claimed he left that position for financial reasons rather than due to his compensable injury.
The employer also challenged the reliability of Dr. Gosse’s opinion, arguing it was inappropriate for him to address the ultimate issue before the tribunal.
Tribunal’s analysis and decision
The tribunal found the worker’s testimony “candid and straightforward” and consistent with documentary evidence. The decision noted his challenges with public interaction and social situations were “well-documented.”
The tribunal gave “significant weight” to Dr. Gosse’s opinion, noting that basing psychological assessments on worker self-reports is “not only common practice but standard practice.” The decision emphasized that Dr. Gosse’s expertise extended to diagnosing and treating psychological conditions, making him qualified to assess whether a job would negatively impact a worker’s psychological health.
Addressing the employer’s challenge to the medical opinion, the tribunal stated: “While Dr. Gosse does not have expertise in occupational medicine, or whether a worker can do the physical aspects of a job, he is able to provide an opinion on how a worker’s psychological condition may be impacted by a certain work environment.”
The tribunal found several aspects of the customer service role problematic for the worker, including the likelihood of encountering “disgruntled and perhaps aggressive” customers, the fast-paced nature creating stress, and the open environment where co-workers could move behind him.
The tribunal determined the Board must recalculate the worker’s extended earnings-replacement benefit without using the Clerk 3 position’s estimated earnings. The decision leaves it to the Board to consider other suitable employment in Nova Scotia or Alberta, or calculate benefits without reference to deemed earnings.
For more information, see 2024-141-AD (Re), 2025 CanLII 62255 (NS WCAT).
