- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Stress, mental (chronic)
- Major depressive disorder
The worker appealed an ARO decision, dated July 26, 2021, which denied her entitlement for chronic mental stress (CMS). About 16 months prior to the claimed accident, the worker began as an administrative assistant (AA III) in the Financial Crimes Unit where she interacted over the telephone with people who were victims of fraud. The medical reporting indicated that the worker had been subjected to irate citizens over the previous 18 months since assuming the role of AA III in the Financial Crimes Unit. The worker was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress (Axis I) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Axis II).
The Panel allowed the appeal.OPM Document No. 15-03-14, "Chronic Mental Stress," was applicable to this appeal and states that a substantial work-related stressor must be identified as a cause of the injury. A work-related stressor will generally be considered substantial if it is excessive in intensity and/or duration in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by workers in similar circumstances. Interpersonal conflicts are not generally considered to be a substantial work-related stressor, unless the conflict amounts to workplace harassment, or results in conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive. The Panel found that the preponderance of evidence supported, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker was exposed to substantial work-related stress in the form of daily or almost daily telephone interactions with callers whose conduct was objectively abusive - that is, conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive. The Panel noted that although the worker had the option to transfer a call, end a call, and even avoid specific repeat callers, she would still have been subjected to abuse from some callers in the initial telephone interaction before having an opportunity to disengage the caller. In addition, the Panel accepted that the customer service training provided to the worker was not a complete shield that would protect the worker from abusive callers. The worker testified that she was not provided with specific training that was provided to police officers and possibly civilian 911 operators that focused on the mental health or "emotional stability" of police officers/911 operators in dealing with difficulty individuals.The Panel acknowledged that there was significant disagreement between the parties on the frequency and intensity of abusive calls experienced by the worker. The medical evidence indicated that the worker had become increasingly emotionally affected by abusive calls and less capable of managing them. The Panel accepted the worker's testimony that the abusive calls were experienced daily or almost daily and certainly every week. The Panel made this finding based not only on the likelihood that the worker's subjective perception of an abusive caller was different from the perceptions of her colleagues (a police officer and another individual with prior experience working for a crisis line), but also on the basis that the worker was likely exposed to more objectively abusive callers given her diminished ability to de-escalate such calls relative to her colleagues.The Panel agreed with Decision No. 831/21's finding that the subjective opinion of the worker on the question of whether conduct was abusive was not determinative of entitlement to benefits, and an objective standard must be applied. The Panel found that although the worker likely had a different perspective on what constituted an abusive call than did her two colleagues, she was nevertheless exposed to conduct that "a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive."