Wolfe v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co.

330 N.E.2d 603 (N.Y. 1975)

Wachtler, J.

This appeal involves a claim for workmen's compensation benefits for the period during which the

claimant was incapacitated by severe depression caused by the discovery of her immediate supervisor's

body after he had committed suicide.

The facts as adduced at a hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Board are uncontroverted. The

claimant, Mrs. Diana Wolfe, began her employment with the respondent department store, Sibley,

Lindsay & Curr Co. in February, 1968. After working for some time as an investigator in the security

department of the store she became secretary to Mr. John Gorman, the security director. It appears from

the record that as head of security, Mr. Gorman was subjected to intense pressure, especially during the

Christmas holidays. Mrs. Wolfe testified that throughout the several years she worked at Sibley's Mr.

Gorman reacted to this holiday pressure by becoming extremely agitated and nervous. She noted,

however, that this anxiety usually disappeared when the holiday season was over. Unfortunately, Mr.

Gorman's nervous condition failed to abate after the 1970 holidays....

Despite the fact that he followed Mrs. Wolfe's advice to see a doctor, Mr. Gorman's mental condition

continued to deteriorate. On one occasion he left work at her suggestion because he appeared to be so

nervous. This condition persisted until the morning of June 9, 1971 when according to the claimant, Mr.

Gorman looked much better and even smiled and 'tousled her hair' when she so remarked.

A short time later Mr. Gorman called her on the intercom and asked her to call the police to room 615.

Mrs. Wolfe complied with this request and then tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr. Gorman on the

intercom. She entered his office to find him lying in a pool of blood caused by a self-inflicted gunshot

wound in the head. Mrs. Wolfe became extremely upset and was unable to continue working that day.

She returned to work for one week only to lock herself in her office to avoid the questions of her fellow

workers. Her private physician perceiving that she was beset by feelings of guilt referred her to a

psychiatrist and recommended that she leave work, which she did. While at home she ruminated about

her guilt in failing to prevent the suicide and remained in bed for long periods of time staring at the

ceiling. The result was that she became unresponsive to her husband and suffered a weight loss of 20

pounds. Her psychiatrist, Dr. Grinols diagnosed her condition as an acute depressive reaction.

After attempting to treat her in his office Dr. Grinols realized that the severity of her depression mandated

hospitalization. Accordingly, the claimant was admitted to the hospital on July 9, 1971 where she

remained for two months during which time she received psychotherapy and medication. After she was

discharged, Dr. Grinols concluded that there had been no substantial remission in her depression and

ruminative guilt and so had her readmitted for electroshock treatment. These treatments lasted for three

weeks and were instrumental in her recovery. She was again discharged and, in mid-January, 1972,

resumed her employment with Sibley, Lindsay & Curr.

Mrs. Wolfe's claim for workmen's compensation was granted by the referee and affirmed by the

Workmen's Compensation Board. On appeal the Appellate Division reversed citing its opinions in

[Citations], [concluding]...that mental injury precipitated solely by psychic trauma is not compensate as

a matter of law. We do not agree with this conclusion.

Workmen's compensation, as distinguished from tort liability which is essentially based on fault, is

designed to shift the risk of loss of earning capacity caused by industrial accidents from the worker to

industry and ultimately the consumer. In light of its beneficial and remedial character the Workmen's

Compensation Law should be construed liberally in favor of the employee [Citation].

Liability under the act is predicated on accidental injury arising out of and in the course of

employment....Applying these concepts to the case at bar we note that there is no issue raised concerning

the causal relationship between the occurrence and the injury. The only testimony on this matter was

given by Dr. Grinols who stated unequivocally that the discovery of her superior's body was the competent

producing cause of her condition. Nor is there any question as to the absence of physical impact.

Accordingly, the focus of our inquiry is whether or not there has been an accidental injury within the

meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Since there is no statutory definition of this term we turn to the relevant decisions. These may be divided

into three categories: (1) psychic trauma which produces physical injury, (2) physical impact which

produces psychological injury, and (3) psychic trauma which produces psychological injury. As to the first

class our court has consistently recognized the principle that an injury caused by emotional stress or

shock may be accidental within the purview of the compensation law. [Citation] Cases falling into the

second category have uniformly sustained awards to those incurring nervous or psychological disorders as

a result of physical impact [Citation]. As to those cases in the third category the decisions are not as

clear....

We hold today that psychological or nervous injury precipitated by psychic trauma is compensate to the

same extent as physical injury. This determination is based on two considerations. First, as noted in the

psychiatric testimony there is nothing in the nature of a stress or shock situation which ordains physical

as opposed to psychological injury. The determinate factor is the particular vulnerability of an individual

by virtue of his physical makeup. In a given situation one person may be susceptible to a heart attack

while another may suffer a depressive reaction. In either case the result is the samethe individual is

incapable of functioning properly because of an accident and should be compensated under the

Workmen's Compensation Law.

Secondly, having recognized the reliability of identifying psychic trauma as a causative factor of injury in

some cases and the reliability by identifying psychological injury as a resultant factor in other cases, we

see no reason for limiting recovery in the latter instance to cases involving physical impact. There is

nothing talismanic about physical impact.

We would note in passing that this analysis reflects the view of the majority of jurisdictions in this country

and England. [Citations]...

Accordingly, the order appealed from should be reversed and the award to the claimant reinstated, with

costs.

question:

There was a dissent in this case (not included here). Judge Breitel noted that the

evidence was that Mrs. Wolfe had a psychological condition such that her trauma "could

never have occurred unless she, to begin with, was extraordinarily vulnerable to severe

shock at or away from her place of employment or one produced by accident or injury to

those close to her in employment or in her private life." The judge worried that "one can

easily call up a myriad of commonplace occupational pursuits where employees are

often exposed to the misfortunes of others which may in the mentally unstable evoke

precisely the symptoms which this claimant suffered." He concluded, "In an era marked

by examples of overburdening of socially desirable programs with resultant curtailment

or destruction of such programs, a realistic assessment of impact of doctrine is

imperative. An overburdening of the compensation system by injudicious and open ended

expansion of compensation benefits, especially for costly, prolonged, and often

only ameliorative psychiatric care, cannot but threaten its soundness or that of the

enterprises upon which it depends." What is the concern here?