Workers' Compensation_post-traumatic stress_fireman_abusive supervisor_driving test
The Industrial Commission did not err by concluding that a workers' compensation
plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and other psychological conditions did not
develop and were not aggravated by causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to his
employment as a firefighter. An abusive supervisor, an employment test, and a perceived
demotion are not uncommon in the workplace.
Gary A. Dodd for plaintiff-appellant.
William F. Slawter, PLLC, by William F. Slawter, for
defendant-appellee.
BRYANT, Judge.
Thomas C. Clark (plaintiff) appeals an opinion and award of
the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission) filed 17
September 2002 denying his workers' compensation claim.
On 13 May 1999, plaintiff filed a Form 18 with the Commission
alleging he had suffered an occupational disease, post-traumatic
stress disorder, after failing a required driving test and being
told he could no longer drive fire trucks for the city.
Plaintiff's employer, the City of Asheville, denied his claim, and
plaintiff requested a hearing before the Commission.
In its 17 September 2002 opinion and award, the Commission
found as fact that: 1. Plaintiff is 52 years of age . . . . He
completed high school. Plaintiff served in
the Army from 1969-71, completing two tours of
duty in Vietnam, with an honorable discharge
in 1971. Plaintiff had combat duty, patrol
duty and prisoner of war camp assignment while
in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, plaintiff was
exposed to violence and death.
2. Plaintiff began working with the Fire
Department of the City of Asheville in 1973
and continued working there until he retired
December 1, 1998. . . . Prior to May 1998,
[p]laintiff had been trained and given the
additional duty of driving the fire trucks.
He had been driving the fire truck for about
20 years.
3. At the time that [p]laintiff began
driving fire trucks, around 1978, the position
of fire truck driver was not a specific,
designated position. Firefighters would share
this duty, and there was no additional pay.
Previously, the driver position had been a
promotional position and firefighters were
required to pass a test.
4. In the spring of 1998, there were 39
firefighters who were also assigned as
drivers, of which five had been tested and
promoted into the driver position. At that
time, the City determined that the position of
truck driver would be changed back to a
separate promotional position. A firefighter
would be required to pass a hands-on test to
qualify as a driver. Plaintiff and all the
other firefighters were notified of this
change. Anyone who wished to drive the truck,
including the existing drivers, would be
required to take and pass the test in order to
keep driving. The only exception was for the
five drivers who had previously taken and
successfully completed the driving test and
had been promoted to the designated position
[in the past].
5. In May 1998, 62 firefighters, including
[p]laintiff, took the test to qualify as
drivers. Of those, 41 passed and 21 did not
pass. Of the 21 who did not pass, 9,
including [p]laintiff, were already assigned
drivers. As a result of the test, those who
were assigned drivers who did not pass[] would
no longer be assigned to drive on a regularbasis, but would work as relief drivers.
There was no demotion involved, and there was
no reduction in pay, but there was a change of
duty assignment. All drivers who did not pass
the test were given an opportunity to
challenge the test results, which [p]laintiff
chose not to do.
6. Plaintiff has a long history of treatment
for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
caused by his combat experience in Vietnam.
He has a ten percent service connected
disability through the Veterans Administration
[(V.A.)] related to his PTSD. Plaintiff
showed signs of a stress disorder shortly
after returning from Vietnam . . . . As early
as 1986, he reported to the V.A. [m]edical
staff that he was having dreams about Vietnam.
At that time, he was also having difficulties
in his first marriage, problems with anger,
and was expressing suicidal thoughts.
7. . . . [B]y March 1995, [plaintiff] had
been assessed with PTSD and depression of
several years duration. . . .
. . . .
10. At the time he took the driver's test in
May 1998, [p]laintiff had many personal
stressors in his life and an extensive history
of mental health treatment for depression,
PTSD, and anger management.
11. The position of firefighter may be
considered inherently dangerous and exposes
firefighters to many traumatic events not
usually witnessed by the general public
. . . . The evidence in this case, however,
fails to show that such events were factors
significantly contributing to [p]laintiff's
psychological problems, including PTSD,
depression and anger.
12. After [p]laintiff was notified that he
did not pass the driver's test, [p]laintiff
became extremely angry. He called his
employee assistance plan and was referred to
Dr. Phillip Ellis, a psychologist . . . , who
[p]laintiff then saw . . . for crisis
intervention. Plaintiff expressed his anger
at not passing the test and viewed the
situation as a demotion. He was particularly
upset with the [f]ire [c]hief . . . .
13. Having reviewed and considered the
testimony of [the examining psychologists],
the . . . Commission finds that [p]laintiff's
post-traumatic stress disorder . . . resulted
from his service during the Vietnam War and
that his condition, combined with his
personality type, led to extreme anger and
potential violence when dealing with stresses
of life such as marital, family, and
relationship problems. He had a similar
reaction to the driver's test and his
relationship with the fire chief. To his
credit, he recognized the potential for
violence and sought help . . . .
. . . .
15. Failing an employment test and perceiving
demotion are not uncommon circumstances in the
workplace.[
(See footnote 1)
] Such occurrences are not
characteristic to employment as a firefighter,
and employment as a firefighter does not
increase one's risk of experiencing stress as
a result of failing a test or perceiving
demotion. Neither [p]laintiff's PTSD nor his
mental state in dealing with the driver's test
or the [fire] chief were the result of any
traumatic event or events characteristic of
employment as a firefighter.
16. After May 1998, [p]laintiff returned to
light duty work . . . until December 1, 1998,
when . . . he went out of work on retirement
status.
Based on these findings, the Commission concluded plaintiff's post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression, and other psychological
condition did not develop and was not aggravated by causes and
conditions “characteristic of and peculiar to his employment” as a
firefighter.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***