Labor & Employment Law Update

A recent decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit found that OSHA lacked congressional authorization to regulate mental health in the workplace. While the decision does not change workers' compensation laws or standards for mental injury claims, it raises important questions for employers about how workplace mental health conditions may be evaluated under existing legal frameworks.

Understanding the Different Types of Workers' Compensation Mental Health Claims

Mental health has a broad definition, but in the workers’ compensation field there are generally three types of mental health claims:

1. Physical-Mental Claims. These claims arise when a physical workplace injury leads to a mental health condition. For example, a physical injury such as falling off a ladder at work that leads to a diagnosed mental condition such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc.
2. Mental-Physical Claims. These claims involve a work-related mental or emotional stressor that results in a physical medical condition. For example, a stressor related to work that causes a physical condition like a heart attack or stroke.
3. Mental-Mental Claims. These claims involve a mental health condition caused by a work-related event without a corresponding physical injury. For example, a mental condition like PTSD, anxiety, depression, etc. that is caused by a work event like witnessing a violent assault or death at work that occurs without any physical injury to the worker.

Evaluating Workplace Mental Health Claims

Although evaluation of mental health claims vary by state, these types of workers’ compensation claims typically require:

1. A valid diagnosis from a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. Employees cannot self-diagnose.
2. A licensed psychiatrist or psychologist must provide opinions to causally relate the work event/work stressor to the mental health diagnosis.
3. Legal damages related to the condition. If the employee is able to work without any issues despite the mental health diagnosis and causal opinion, there is likely not any workers’ compensation benefits owed.

Why the Exxon Decision Matters to Employers

Depending on the state, workplace mental health claims can be difficult to prove to begin with, but this Exxon decision may help to enhance arguments to deny more “mental health” claims in the workers’ compensation field. The Fifth Circuit held that OSHA was enacted to only regulate physical medical conditions, not mental health conditions. Using this rationale, workers’ compensation and occupational disease injuries are limited to the scope in which each state’s workers’ compensation agency defines a work-related injury. This may further cause each state’s workers’ compensation agency to look closer at how they define a work-related injury, in turn causing more legislative activity in each state.

The decision serves as a reminder that the definitions of work-related injuries and illnesses is evolving. To better position themselves to manage risk, employers should:

• Keep a close eye on how their state workers’ compensation agency defines work-related injuries.
• Fully evaluate and investigate any mental health workers’ compensation claim.
• Consult experienced counsel when navigating workplace mental health claims.