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
Employment Law
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
© 2024 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 All'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Employee's Alleged Action Lands Marriott in Court for Defamation, Negligence
11th Circuit Rejects Former CSX Employee's Safety-Related Whistleblowing Claims
Judge Says University of Miami Should Face Discrimination Case by Ex-Department Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Giving Back to My Community as a PVLA Volunteer
- 2Civil Reservations: An Important Tool for New Jersey Courts and Criminal Defendants
- 3People in the News—Nov. 18, 2024—Hamburg Rubin, Offit Kurman
- 4How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'Leaders Must Be Good Listeners,' Says Dan Summerlin of Woods Rogers
- 5Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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