The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation has upheld a decision denying a worker’s claim for psychological injury, finding that the alleged workplace stressors were not objectively confirmed or excessive compared to normal employment pressures.
The worker alleged that she was subjected to unwelcome flirtatious conduct by her supervisor, including suggestive comments, staring, personal calls, and unsolicited gifts, which she claimed created a hostile work environment.
The Commission concluded that the worker, identified as J.D., did not meet the criteria for a compensable psychological injury on a chronic onset basis.
Background of the case
J.D. filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), asserting that she suffered a psychological injury due to work-related stressors, including alleged bullying and harassment from 2016 to 2021. She also cited exposure to graphic information at work as a contributing factor to her condition.
The WCB denied her claim on Feb. 9, 2022, and reaffirmed its decision on Nov. 29, 2023, stating that the employer’s actions fell within “the normal pressures and tensions of employment.” J.D. sought a review, but the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body confirmed the WCB’s decision on May 27, 2024. Subsequently, she appealed to the Appeals Commission.
Criteria for compensable psychological injury
The Commission evaluated whether J.D.’s situation met the four key criteria outlined in Application 6:
Confirmed DSM-V diagnosis: J.D. was diagnosed with Acute Stress Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by her neuropsychiatrist, satisfying the requirement for a confirmed diagnosis.
Objectively confirmed work-related stressors: The Commission examined whether J.D. experienced objectively confirmed, non-traumatic work-related stressors or bullying and harassment.
Excessive or unusual stressors: The stressors must be excessive or unusual compared to the normal pressures and tensions of employment.
Predominant cause of injury: The work-related stressors must be the predominant cause of the psychological injury.
Findings of the commission
The Commission determined that while J.D. had a confirmed DSM-V diagnosis, the evidence did not support her claims of ongoing bullying, harassment, or excessive work-related stressors.
Supervisor’s conduct
J.D. alleged that her supervisor engaged in unwelcome flirtatious behaviour until 2016, including making suggestive comments, staring, and giving her gifts. After she reported the conduct to management, it ceased. The Commission acknowledged witness statements that partially corroborated her claims:
- Witnesses confirmed that the supervisor often called J.D. into his office, stared at her, brought her coffee exclusively, and leaned over her desk.
- One witness noted that J.D. appeared uncomfortable after interactions with the supervisor.
However, the Commission noted that “the letters do not corroborate most of the worker’s allegations” and that the employer’s investigation found her complaints unsubstantiated, though the full report was not provided.
Allegations of retaliation
J.D. claimed that after reporting her supervisor’s conduct, she faced retaliation, including negative performance reviews and reduced input into her work. The Commission found no objective evidence to support these allegations, stating, “Allegations of retaliatory behaviour that could be considered bullying or harassment are not objectively confirmed in the evidence before us.”
Shift change and accommodation process
J.D. argued that a shift change implemented in 2021 and the handling of her accommodation request contributed to her psychological injury. The Commission held that these actions fell within the employer’s management rights and the normal pressures of employment.
“The evidence does not support the conclusion that this change was targeted at the worker or conducted in a manner that would bring it outside of the non-compensable normal pressures and tensions of employment,” the decision stated.
Exposure to graphic information
Regarding her exposure to graphic and traumatic content at work, the Commission found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this exposure was excessive or unusual compared to other workers in similar positions. “There is, however, little to no evidence before us about that exposure,” the Commission noted.
Medical evidence and predominant cause
While medical professionals attributed J.D.’s condition to her work environment, the Commission emphasized that policy requires the work-related stressors to be the predominant cause of the injury. The medical reports did not specify which exposures caused her condition.
“Policy requires the evidence show the compensable stressors be the predominant cause of the injury,” the Commission stated. “By failing to distinguish the specific cause of her injury, these reports do not provide sufficient evidence to show the worker’s condition was predominately caused by the objectively confirmed compensable stressor—the supervisor’s pre-2016 treatment of the worker.”
The Commission also considered the time gap between the supervisor’s conduct, which ended in 2016, and the onset of J.D.’s psychological symptoms in 2021. “We are not persuaded that the supervisor’s conduct was the predominant cause of her condition because that conduct ended five years earlier,” the decision read.
The Appeals Commission concluded that J.D. does not have a compensable claim for chronic onset psychological injury. The decision emphasized the necessity of objective confirmation of stressors and their classification as excessive or unusual compared to normal workplace conditions.
“The worker’s remaining complaints fall within the non-compensable normal pressures and tensions of employment,” the Commission stated. “The shift change, the investigation into the response, and the subsequent accommodation process all fall within the employer’s management of work and cannot support a claim for chronic onset psychological injury.”
For more information, see Decision No.: 2024-0512, 2024 CanLII 118396 (AB WCAC).
