Seeing 2 Babies Die after Unsuccessful CPR Attempts Supports Pa. Firefighter’s Claim

Case File

Although performing CPR on people, including children, who might not pull through isn't beyond what a firefighter might expect on the job, witnessing the deaths of two babies in a 16-month period following his unsuccessful resuscitation efforts was "abnormal" for purposes of a Pennsylvania firefighter's "mental/mental" workers' compensation claim. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Ganley v. Upper Darby Township, No. 770 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 10/22/05)

What Happened?

A firefighter for a Pennsylvania township took a medical leave of absence following two events in which he performed CPR on infants who were not breathing, neither of whom he was able to revive.

During the first event, the firefighter responded to a report of cardiac arrest for a two-week old infant. The firefighter performed CPR with the paramedics' assistance but was unable to bring the baby back.

About two and a half years later, a father brought a nine-month old infant who was not breathing into the fire station, but the firefighter was not able to revive the baby.

After the second incident, the firefighter's mental health symptoms intensified. He left his duties and experienced anxiety, depression, anger, PTSD, loss of appetite and sleep, and nightmares.

The parties did not dispute that the firefighter experienced PTSD because of his work-related duties. The dispute centered on whether the causal events amounted to abnormal working conditions.

The workers' compensation judge reached the legal conclusion that the firefighter did not establish the causative events were abnormal. According to the WCJ, the firefighter did not establish that he was subject to conditions unlike those to which an employee in his position was normally subject and also did not establish that the events at issue were not normally experienced or anticipated by employees in the firefighter's line of work.

The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board upheld the WCJ's ruling. The firefighter appealed to court.

Rule of Law

Under Pennsylvania law, for a psychological injury caused by a mental stimulus, also referred to as a "mental/mental" injury, a claimant must prove his employment caused his psychological injury. Additionally, a claimant's psychological injury cannot merely be his subjective reaction to normal working conditions. Instead, a claimant must prove an abnormal working condition caused his psychological injury.

Workers Comp 101: Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act sorts psychological injuries into three categories:

(1) "Mental/physical," where a psychological stimulus causes a physical injury

(2) "Physical/mental," were a physical stimulus causes a psychic injury

(3) "Mental/mental," where a psychological stimulus causes a psychic injury.

What the Court Said

Although rendering CPR and experiencing death was not atypical for a firefighter, the court explained that the "reality of Claimant's situation was that he performed CPR on and witnessed the deaths of two infant children within a 16-month period," pushing his case into the "abnormal working conditions" category.

"Claimant did not simply witness death at a usual call involving a fire or a motor vehicle crash," the court wrote. "Claimant was actively involved in attempting to resuscitate two separate unresponsive babies and witnessing each of their deaths."

In reaching its decision, the court look to two cases in which employees encountered conditions that could arguably be considered "part of the job" but nonetheless constituted abnormal conditions:

Payes v. Pa. State Police, 79 A.3d 543 (Pa. 2013). A state trooper demonstrated an abnormal working condition existed and he was entitled to benefits for a psychological injury that occurred after he accidentally struck and killed a pedestrian with his police car and simultaneously attempted to revive her and to divert traffic from hitting them. The court noted the facts found by the WCJ established the existence of "an extraordinarily unusual and distressing single work-related event" experienced by the claimant, which resulted in his disabling mental condition, where "such single and comprehensive work-related event constituted an abnormal working condition as a matter of law."

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Kochanowicz, 108 A.3d 922 (Pa. Commw. 2014). Although the claimant, a liquor store clerk, received training on workplace violence and robberies had occurred at other liquor stores, such training was not entirely relevant and not dispositive of whether the armed robbery the claimant experienced was a normal working condition. A singular, extraordinary event occurred during the claimant's work shift that caused the claimant's PTSD and established that the specific armed robbery was not a normal working condition.

Verdict: The court reversed and remanded the WCAB's ruling.

Takeaway

A firefighter's performance of CPR on two infants who were not revived in a 16-month period constituted an "extraordinary event" and, therefore, an abnormal working condition.

Share This Article: