AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker, serving as the Chief Financial Officer for Southwest Learning Center, discovered and reported evidence of financial fraud by the Executive Director to the Office of the State Auditor and subsequently became a confidential informant for the FBI. During his cooperation with the FBI, the Worker experienced hostile encounters and feared for his and his family's safety, leading to the installation of security equipment at his home. After revealing his informant status to his employer, his work conditions deteriorated, resulting in restricted work capabilities and eventual termination. Following his termination, the Worker, diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by a counselor, filed a Workers’ Compensation complaint (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in finding that he failed to provide legally sufficient notice of his work-related injury, that his complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, that the testimony of his health care provider was inadmissible, and that he did not sustain a compensable injury (para 1).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker provided legally sufficient notice of his claimed work-related injury.
• Whether the Worker’s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the testimony of the Worker’s health care provider was admissible.
• Whether the Worker sustained a compensable injury.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ’s order denying the Worker's claim for workers’ compensation benefits and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Worker provided timely notice to the Employer once he became aware of his compensable injury, disagreeing with the WCJ's finding that the Worker should have known of his injury earlier. The Court also determined that the statute of limitations did not bar the Worker’s complaint, as it began running only when the Worker became aware of his compensable injury (PTSD) upon diagnosis. Furthermore, the Court held that the WCJ abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Dr. Fredman, the Worker’s health care provider, after initially admitting it. The Court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the WCJ’s finding that the Worker did not suffer a psychologically traumatic event, given the unchallenged testimony regarding the cause of the Worker’s PTSD. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, instructing reconsideration of whether the Worker suffered a psychologically traumatic event in light of Dr. Fredman’s testimony (paras 5-18).