PSYCHOLOGICAL CLAIMS IN WORKER’S COMPENSATION CASES
to the general characterized as due to the general character of her employment as a paramedic.
Davis v. Dynacorp , 336 Md. 226, 647 A.2d 446 (1994).
An employee’s claim for worker’s compensation for a mental disorder allegedly due to work -related harassment was summarily dismissed when the employee failed to prove a relationship between the disease and his job as a computer operator.
The Court held that the employee’s alleged occupational disease was not compensable under 9-502 (d) (1)(i) because it was not due to the nature of the employment in which hazards of the occupational disease existed. The Court determined that the employee failed to prove the relationship between the disease and the nature of his employment because there was nothing peculiar to the employee’s duties as a computer operator that made him more susceptible to harassment than in any other kind of employment. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and held that the claimant’s mental injury caused by work-related stress was not compensable as an occupational; disease under Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl. Section 9-502(d). The Court found that the type of difficult working conditions experienced by the claimant were not uniquely characteristic of any occupation. There was no evidence that the stressful conditions were a result of anything other than poor management.
King v. Board of Education , 354 Md. 369, 731, A.2d 460 (1999).
While working for the employer, the claimant consulted with a psychiatrist for chest pains, extreme nervousness with crying jags, fatigue, aches and pains. The psychiatrist diagnosed claimant with somatization disorder and major depression. The claimant subsequently left her job due to her symptoms and filed a claim with the commission for worker’s compensation benefits, alleging occupational disease. The claimant alleged that she suffered from a nervous breakdown that arose out of
Powered by FlippingBook