Could Officer with PTSD Capture Extra 30% Penalty from Employer?

What Do You Think?

An employer can end up owing a sizable penalty to an employee if it denies his workers’ compensation claim and that denial is “frivolous.” As one case shows, there are special rules in Minnesota that impact whether a denial is frivolous if the employee is a police officer with PTSD.

The Minneapolis officer in that case underwent two mental health examinations when he started working for the city. Both exams concluded that he had no pre-existing mental health issues.

During a long career, the officer investigated homicides, including several involving victims who were children. He responded to a mass shooting with a live shooter. Eventually, he began to suffer from poor concentration, negative thoughts, loss of empathy, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, feelings of isolation, and unregulated anger. He went to see a doctor, who, in 2021, diagnosed him with PTSD. 

On the doctor’s advice, the officer quit his job. He filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The city denied the claim. It explained that the officer had a history of mental health challenges outside of work that caused his condition.

A workers' compensation judge ruled the city’s denial frivolous and awarded the officer a penalty. The appeals court affirmed that decision, and the city appealed to the state supreme court.

When an employer’s denial of a workers’ compensation claim is “frivolous,” the employee is entitled to an additional 30 percent of the total award as a penalty against the employer. A denial is frivolous if:

• The employer denies the claim without investigating the facts in good faith; or 
• The basis for the denial is clearly contrary to fact or law.

Was the officer entitled to a penalty?

A. Yes. The city was required to either pay the claim or provide a good reason for denying it.

B. No. The city’s denial may have been based on an error, but it was not frivolous.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, No. A24-1205 (Minn. 07/25/25), which held that the city failed to investigate the claim in good faith.

The court pointed out that when a police officer experiences PTSD and has not been previously diagnosed with the condition, there is a presumption that the PTSD is an occupational disease. The employer can rebut that presumption. But if it does so, it must communicate substantial reasons for the denial to the employee at the time it denies the claim. 

Looking for info on presumptions in your state? Look to Simply Research.

The presumption applied to the officer, the court stated. Further, the city did not investigate the claim before denying it. Its denial stated that the employee had a history of personal mental health conditions caused by emotional stress occurring outside of work. But that was inaccurate, as shown by the results of both mental exams.

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the 30 percent penalty against the employer.

Share This Article: