J.T. v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, CP# 2007-12153 (N.J. Division of Workers' Compensation, Decided November 29, 2010)

Is "merited criticism" of an employee's job performance sufficient to give rise to a finding of compensability in a psychiatric disability claim?

The petitioner, a former security officer for the employer, filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation alleging occupational exposure to stressful working conditions and harassment from her supervisor. In support of her claim, the petitioner testified as to four incidents of alleged harassment at the hands of her supervisor. The first incident involved allowing another employee longer breaks than the petitioner and the other security officers. The petitioner's supervisor testified that there were medical reasons for his decision. The second incident pertained to a reprimand the petitioner received from her supervisor for wrapping herself in a blanket while assigned to a post in the emergency room on a particularly cold evening. The petitioner's supervisor asked that she remove the blanket as it made for an unprofessional appearance. The third incident involved a reprimand the petitioner received for violating the employer's sick leave policy. The last incident pertained to the petitioner's being questioned when she refrained from taking her 30-minute lunch break on a particular afternoon and, instead, clocked out of work a half hour early that same day. As a result of these incidents, the petitioner alleges to have sustained permanent psychiatric disability. Following trial, the judge of compensation held that the petitioner had not sustained her burden of proof as to the compensability of her occupational psychiatric claim. The judge of compensation relied on Goyden v. State Judiciary, 256 N.J. Super. 438 (App. Div. 1991), which provides the standard for awarding permanent disability for psychological illness arising out of stressful work conditions. In Goyden, the Appellate Division held that a petitioner must demonstrate the existence of objective evidence of job stress which, when viewed realistically, establishes working conditions sufficiently stressful to contribute to the development of psychiatric disability. Additionally, the objectively stressful working conditions must be peculiar to the particular workplace. Of significance, Goyden held that merited criticism cannot be considered to be a condition characteristic of or indigenous to a particular trade, occupation or place of employment as it is common to all employment. "Even if [J.T.] did have a . . . psychiatric disability," the judge of compensation stated, "it did not arise out of and in the course of her employment." The judge of compensation reasoned that "[Merely] correcting the performance of an underling such as ordering her to remove the blanket, warning her of sick leave infractions and ordering her to remain at her station is inherent to [all] employment and, therefore, could not be regarded as 'peculiar' to J.T.'s work place[.] Petitioner failed to produce . . . proofs that her perceived harassment was anything but 'merited criticism' within the meaning of Goyden."

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011