Decision calls for rethinking of work-related injuries
Published 09/05/00

When most people think of a work-related injury, they think of an employee hurting his back while lifting a heavy box or developing carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of extended amounts of time working on a computer. However, in a recent decision, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has clarified its definition of a work-related injury for worker’s compensation purposes to include depression suffered by an employee as the result of her supervisor’s legitimate criticism of her work performance.

In Appeal of New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, the employee, Gail Sirviris-Allen sought worker’s compensation benefits from her employer after being diagnosed with major depression, which her doctors believed was the result of stress from being criticized by her supervisor at work. Ms. Sirviris-Allen had received a significant number of warnings about her job performance with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, had been transferred several times to different positions, and had been given leave from work on several occasions as a result of clinical depression and problems related to attention deficit disorder. In September 1995, Ms. Sirviris-Allen filed a workers compensation claim, arguing that she was suffering from a work-related stress injury resulting from disciplinary action taken against her on or about August 5, 1995. The hearings officer who heard the case initially at the Department of Labor denied the claim, but the Compensation Appeals Board reversed that decision, finding that her supervisor’s criticism, although justified, caused Ms. Sirviris-Allen’s major depression. As a result, the Compensation Appeals Board concluded that the problems with major depression did qualify as a work-related injury and were compensable under the New Hampshire Workers Compensation Statute.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Compensation Appeals Board. The Court explained that an injury is compensable under New Hampshire Worker’s Compensation Law so long as it is an "accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment. . ." The Court explained that the accidental quality of a compensable injury may consist of an unexpected effect as well as an unexpected cause. As a result, even though Ms. Sirviris-Allen’s supervisor criticized her in good faith, the major depression constituted an unexpected effect of that conduct. As such, the Court determined that this was an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

The Court did note that it was concerned about this result from a public policy perspective, as it may involve a larger extension of liability than prior decisions on work-related cumulative stress injuries. Nevertheless, the Court upheld its longstanding practice to give the broadest reasonable affect to the remedial purpose of worker’s compensation laws and found that a rule barring recovery for injury caused by good faith criticism of an employee’s work performance is more properly made by the legislature.

This decision raises important new issues for employers who are disciplining or criticizing the job performance of their employees. Even if the criticism of the employee’s performance is legitimate, the employer could nevertheless face a worker’s compensation claim if the employee suffers serious depression or another significant mental injury as the result of the criticism. Employers should consider this possibility when correcting or disciplining their employees, and may wish to consult with legal counsel if faced with such a situation.

The attorney who wrote this article is no longer at the law firm of Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. in Nashua. Other practitioners at the firm handle work in the same areas of law which he worked in, which included employment law, family law, and general litigation, including property tax abatement and personal injury.You can reach one of those lawyers by calling the law firm (883-5501) or by e-mail at info@nashualaw.com .

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.