No. 1329 C.D. 2022
OPINION BY: Senior Judge Leavitt / FILED: November 30, 2023
In a Nutshell: It is not an abnormal working condition sufficient to establish a “mental-mental” injury if the Claimant could anticipate the work event, in this case, a truck fire, and had been trained on how to respond to that specific event.
Claimant, a truck driver, averred in his Claim Petition that he developed PTSD because of a tractor and trailer he was driving that caught on fire.
On February 5, 2015, he pulled his truck onto the shoulder of a road when he saw flames outside the truck reflected in the passenger mirror. Claimant grabbed his cell phone, exited the vehicle, and ran 100 yards up the road where he called his Employer’s dispatcher.
As Claimant watched from that distance, another truck pulled off the road behind Claimant’s truck. The driver of the second truck put out the fire, first using his own fire extinguisher and then the extinguisher on Claimant’s truck. Claimant returned and helped the other driver throw snow on the embers of the fire. Claimant acknowledged that the truck fire was extinguished in 2 to 3 minutes.
Employer’s dispatcher sent a tow truck, and Claimant filed a report with the Pennsylvania State Police. Claimant rode with the tow truck to the repair shop and spent the night in a hotel arranged by Employer. After a day, Claimant drove the replacement truck to Chicago, Illinois. Claimant acknowledged that he was not burned in the 2015 truck fire and was able to escape the truck without difficulty.
Finding in favor of the Claimant, the WCJ found that Claimant had been exposed to an abnormal working condition, sufficient to establish a compensable “mental-mental“ injury. The WCJ concluded that “the truck fire at issue falls into the category of a highly unusual and singular event.”
There was medical testimony presented by both litigants providing for a finding of complete inability to work due to the psychological impact of the truck fire, or a limited, truncated period of time where he was on unable to work.
The Court noted that Claimant did not begin treatment for his PTSD until approximately 2 1/2 years after the truck fire.
The Court closely examined the circumstances of the truck fire experienced by Claimant and concluded that the engine fire “was clearly something an over-the-road truck driver might expect to occur in the course of his/her employment.” The Court noted that Claimant received formal training concerning steps to be taken in the event that a truck fire occurred.
The Court pointed out that Claimant’s truck was equipped with a fire extinguisher; his pre-trip inspection ensured that fire extinguishers were on board, and he had seen truck fires and the burnt remains of trucks. The Court stated that in Claimant’s “line of work”, truck drivers experience and anticipate fires.
The Court concluded that Claimant had failed to establish that he incurred a “mental-mental” injury arising from an abnormal working condition in that the truck fire he experienced did not rise to the level of an “extraordinarily unusual and distressing” employment event for a truck driver.
If you would like further information or have any questions regarding the information contained in this article, please contact, Kelly M. Davis, Esquire, at kdavis@vaughanbaio.com or by phone at (717)-980-3700.
