Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD) affects millions of lives throughout the country, and is especially prevalent for those who have served in the military or in first responder situations. In Minnesota, the legislature has found the connection between these professions and the disease so significant that it created a presumption that if people working in such positions are diagnosed with PTSD during their career, it is presumed that the disease occurred as a result of their occupation.
In Juntunen v. Carlton County, the employee, Juntunen, worked as a deputy sheriff for Carlton County. During that time, he was exposed to multiple traumatic events, including an acquaintance’s suicide and a teenager’s automobile death. He was also exposed to several traumatic events in his personal life, including the suicide of a friend and family difficulties.
Juntunen was referred by the County’s Employee Assistance Program to a counselor, with whom he met for three months. He then took a two year break from counseling, but returned after he was starting to feel more anxious at work and when thinking about work. At his attorney’s request (no information on why he had an attorney already), Juntunen then met with Dr. Michael Keller, who performed several diagnostic tests on him, including a test for PTSD. Dr. Keller diagnosed Juntunen with PTSD. Upon presenting the results to his employer, Juntunen was placed on leave, and a first report of injury was completed.
The county, through its representative, denied primary liability and engaged its own doctor for an independent medical exam. Five months later, Juntunen resigned from his position. At the hearing following the IME, where the doctor found Juntunen not to be suffering from PTSD, but rather depression, the compensation judge denied all benefits for Juntunen, finding that he did not sustain PTSD arising out of and in the scope of his employment.
The Workers Compensation Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the PTSD presumption applies when statutory factors are met. Those include the following:
- Employment in one of the listed occupations;
- Disability from the occupation due to a diagnosis of PTSD by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist; and
- No previous PTSD diagnosis.
The WCCA found that the presumption applied in this case because of the PTSD diagnosis of Dr. Keller. The WCCA held that the county failed to rebut the presumption of Keller’s diagnosis, and that it needed to offer evidence that at the time of the disablement, he did not have a PTSD. The County’s doctor did not address the issue of whether the Juntunen had PTSD in 2019; only that he did not have PTSD at the time of his IME.
The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to determine how the PTSD presumption in Minnesota applies when an employee and an employer offer competing medical opinions. The main issue was whether a competing medical opinion (found to be more credible) could affect the presumption of the condition being work-related. Based on dictionary definitions, the Court held that the statute only requires an employee to prove they have received a diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist identifying their disease as PTSD. As a result, employers face a higher burden, where the presumption may be rebutted “by substantial factors.” In order to rebut the presumption in this case, it was necessary for the employer to offer evidence “that the employee did not in fact receive such a diagnosis,” or could “demonstrate that the employee’s diagnosis was invalid or not credible.” As the employer’s doctor only addressed the employee’s current status at the time of his IME, the employer did not have evidence that the diagnosis was not correct at the time of the injury.
In coming to its decision, and discussing the possible financial implications of its decision, the Court stated, “The Legislature determined that employees suffering from PTSD need timely access to medical care, and the PTSD presumption puts the onus on employers to quickly resolve such claims.”
This decision creates an incredibly difficult prospect for employers seeking to deny first responder claims of PTSD related to their work. The law was meant to protect those who work in those positions, yet offered little relief for employers facing the prospect of lifelong benefits for these employees, or contesting the opinions of licensed medical professionals.
The Court did, however, leave a slight window for employers to rebut the presumption that all diagnoses are work-related, and it is important for employers to preserve their ability to do so from the very beginning of a claim. If you, or your organization, are seeking assistance in contesting the PTSD claims of your employees with regard to PERA and lifelong health insurance, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.