A Philadelphia police officer, who suffered severe physical injuries during a robbery incident in 2017, has successfully won the right to add a psychological injury claim to his workers’ compensation case.
The officer, who has been identified as Michael N. Lewis, Sr., faced a tough battle against his employer, the city of Philadelphia. The city opposed his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claim, arguing that the previous settlement regarding his physical injuries should preclude any further claims related to mental health.
However, the Commonwealth Court ruled in Lewis’s favor, stating that his claim for PTSD could proceed as it was not barred by res judicata— a legal principle that prevents the same case from being retried once it has been settled. The court concluded that the previous claims primarily focused on different issues and did not encompass the mental health challenges that emerged later, which were unknown at the time of the earlier settlement agreement.
The incident that led to Lewis’s claim occurred on February 4, 2017, while he was responding to a reported burglary at a pet store. During the confrontation, he struggled with a robbery suspect who was a 5’9″, 180-pound former U.S. Marine. The altercation became violent, with the suspect delivering multiple blows to Lewis’s head, causing him to sustain significant injuries. He ultimately fended off the suspect until backup arrived, but the encounter left him feeling fearful for his life.
Following the incident, Lewis did not return to police duty and subsequently retired due to his injuries. Initially, he filed a workers’ compensation claim focusing on physical injuries, which included a concussion, back injuries, and facial abrasions. The city approved his claim and acknowledged his condition through a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).
In an effort to address ongoing issues related to his condition, Lewis later sought to amend his injury description. On August 19, 2021, there was a stipulation between Lewis and the city which resulted in the amendment of the NCP, explicitly noting that it did not prevent further petitions or claims arising from the Workers’ Compensation Act. At this point, there was no discussion of psychological injuries, apart from Lewis sharing feelings of “hopelessness.”
However, in a significant turn of events on September 20, 2021, Lewis filed a second petition requesting the inclusion of psychological injuries stemming from the physical injuries incurred during the incident. The city denied this request, citing res judicata and collateral estoppel as reasons for dismissal.
The subsequent hearings conducted by a workers’ compensation judge from October 2021 to September 2022 revealed important testimony from Lewis. He disclosed that he had never sought psychological treatment prior to the incident.
In the months following the confrontation, Lewis began experiencing emotional issues, including irritability, feelings of being overwhelmed, and anxiety. He also reported isolating himself, crying frequently, and feeling helpless. Initial attempts to seek help in 2019 led to a brief treatment with a psychologist. The diagnostic assessment indicated that Lewis was in denial about his mental health challenges and felt embarrassed discussing his feelings. Treatment ceased after a few months, but upon returning for help in April 2021, Lewis’s symptoms had intensified, leading him to contemplate suicide.
With medications and ongoing therapy, his condition saw only moderate improvement. Situational triggers, such as the sight of a police vehicle or the sound of sirens, would induce flashbacks related to the incident.
Lewis’s psychologist diagnosed him with major depressive disorder directly attributable to the workplace incident. The doctor emphasized that Lewis’s prior embarrassment about seeking treatment contributed to the delayed onset of addressing his psychological issues.
On the other side, the city’s doctor contested the claim, stating that while Lewis exhibited depressive symptoms, there was no direct link to the traumatic incident, noting the time gap between the event and when he first sought treatment for psychological issues.
During this case, the workers’ compensation judge recognized that Lewis’s treatment delays stemmed from a reluctance to confront his mental health issues rather than any lack of genuine injury. The judge concluded that his psychological injuries did not arise until much later, separated from the issues discussed in his earlier petitions.
When the city appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, that board found in favor of the city, asserting that Lewis should have raised his psychological injuries earlier, as he was aware of them at the time of his initial proceedings. This ruling prompted Lewis to appeal again.
During this appeal, both Lewis and his psychologist maintained that Lewis was unaware of his psychological condition as a compensable injury during the initial proceedings.
The Commonwealth Court, in reversing the board’s decision, acknowledged that while Lewis had been diagnosed with depression prior to his petition to add the psychological component, he did not realize its potential as a compensable work-related injury until much later.
The court articulated that the understanding of psychological conditions differs significantly from physical injuries, which can be substantiated through direct medical imaging or tests. Instead, psychological diagnoses depend heavily on professional evaluations, and Lewis did not perceive the severity or work-related nature of his psychological struggles at the time of the original claim submission.
The court firmly concluded that Lewis’s PTSD claim should not be barred by technicalities of res judicata, thereby allowing him to pursue the psychological aspect of his workers’ compensation claim.
Additionally, Lewis argued that the stipulation language from the first review, which indicated that future petitions could be filed consistent with workers’ compensation law, was overlooked. While this aspect was noted, the Commonwealth Court did not rule on it, focusing instead on the legal grounds for allowing the PTSD claim.
This outcome marks a significant precedent for first responders and others who may endure both physical and psychological injuries from traumatic incidents, underscoring the importance of recognizing the complexities involved in mental health claims within workers’ compensation frameworks.
image source from：insurancejournal
