A state police officer involved in the horrific death scene investigation of an infant failed to establish abnormal working conditions in order to state a claim for psychological injury.

The claimant, an investigator for the Pennsylvania State Police, was involved in homicide investigations by providing forensic and photographic services. One case he investigated (“Baby Jane Doe”) involved a baby girl found in a plastic big near a one-room school house who had been burned with her throat cut. The claimant photographed the remains at the crime scene and also attended and photographed the autopsy. The claimant stopped working for the employer some time later, claiming he developed post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his investigation in the Baby Jane Doe case. He testified that following that investigation, he would cry and suffer nightmares and tried to commit suicide. After hearing testimony on whether the Activities of an investigator involved abnormal working conditions, the workers' compensation judge denied the claim petition, finding that the claimant’s activities at the Baby Jane Doe investigation were normal, routine activities related to his job and drawn precisely from the job description. After the workers' compensation judge’s decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board, the Commonwealth Court confirmed that the burden of proof in a psychological injury claim not stemming from a physical injury is that the injury was more than a subjective reaction to normal working conditions. The court reviewed the established law that the job of a police officer is one that is inherently highly stressful. In affirming the workers' compensation judge’s decision, the court noted that the findings that the claimant’s investigations in the Baby Jane Doe case were not abnormal or out of the ordinary for a forensic services investigator were supported by substantial evidence. In so holding, the court also rejected the claim of an aggravation of a pre-existing mental disorder, including depression, as the claimant was still required to demonstrate that his post traumatic stress disorder was more than a subjective reaction to normal working conditions.

Case Law Alert, 2nd Qtr 2011