Court Weighs Workers' Comp in Police PTSD Case
The officer claimed he suffered PTSD after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
April 05, 2022 at 10:01 AM
3 minute read
A state appeals court will hear arguments this week in a dispute about workers' compensation insurance benefits for a police officer who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County.
A panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal will consider whether a 2018 law that expanded certain workers' compensation benefits for first responders should apply to Matthew Casey, who was a Hallandale Beach police officer when he responded to the Parkland school.
The dispute involves whether the claim for benefits should be pegged to the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting date or to a November 2018 date when Casey was placed on administrative leave because of PTSD. The timing is important because the law that expanded benefits took effect Oct. 1, 2018.
Judge of Compensation Claims Daniel Lewis last year sided with Casey and ruled that he "suffered a new accident when the post-traumatic stress disorder became disabling as of November 19, 2018." Under the 2018 law, that decision entitled Casey to receive what are known as "indemnity" benefits for lost income.
"Since the claimant herein (Casey) was unable to perform a substantial and significant part of his job duties; namely, road patrol, while on administrative leave, I find the claimant has met the definition of disability," Lewis wrote. "I find the claimant's correct date of accident in this post-traumatic stress disorder case to be November 19, 2018."
But Hallandale Beach and Preferred Governmental Claims Services, a workers' compensation claims firm, appealed Lewis' ruling and said the Feb. 14, 2018, date should apply. That would make Casey ineligible for the indemnity benefits — though he would be eligible for benefits covering his medical care.
In a November brief filed at the appeals court, the city and the claims firm argued that the "unequivocal evidence clearly establishes that the last qualifying event to which the claimant was exposed occurred on February 14, 2018, when he was responding and discharging his law enforcement duties" at the school.
Court documents said Casey responded to the school and, in the process of helping clear and secure the building, saw the bodies of dead students and an adult. In all 17 people were killed in the shooting.
Casey sent an email to a supervisor in October 2018 seeking assistance with PTSD, which led to him being placed on administrative leave and receiving treatment. He ultimately left the Hallandale Police Department in 2020 after he was unable to perform road-patrol duties, according to Lewis' ruling.
"Following his involvement as a police officer in the horrific events of February 14, 2018, the claimant began experiencing episodes of anger, bad dreams or nightmares and anxiety," the judge wrote. "In October 2018, while attending an educational training seminar provided by the employer … relating to mental health awareness and post-traumatic stress disorder, the claimant realized that some of his symptoms might be due to a post-traumatic stress disorder condition."
Before the 2018 law, first responders were able to receive medical-care benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder without accompanying physical injuries. But they could not receive the lost-income benefits without also having physical injuries.
The 2018 law, however, allowed first responders to receive lost-income benefits without physical injuries if post-traumatic stress disorder was linked to certain circumstances. Those circumstances included such things as seeing a dead minor or witnessing the death of a minor.
The appeals court will hear arguments Thursday in Casey's case. Court briefs do not detail the amount of money involved in the dispute.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Wrestles With Disabled Ex-Firefighter's Discrimination Case
Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Jan. 22, 2025—Knox McLaughlin, Saxton & Stump
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be Open to Opportunities, Ready to Seize Them When They Arise,' Says Lara Shortz of Michelman & Robinson
- 3The Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
- 4Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: LA Judge Orders Edison to Preserve Wildfire Evidence, Is Kline & Specter Fight With Thomas Bosworth Finally Over?
- 5What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250