What Do You Think?
Prior to June 2025, it was harder in New York for claimants to obtain benefits for PTSD. Essentially, they had to show that extraordinary stress at work caused the condition. A case involving a corrections worker explores whether that law applies to a claim that was denied prior to June 2025 but appealed after that date, and what it takes to demonstrate the required level of stress.
The correction sergeant had dealt with medical emergencies at the prison before. Employing life-saving measures to injured or ill prisoners was part of the job. Prisoners had even died. But one incident was particularly hard for the claimant. On that occasion, an individual she had worked with a decade earlier at a juvenile residential center was having a medical emergency. She took her to the hospital unit. When the prisoner became unresponsive, the claimant and others performed CPR and used a defibrillator, but to no avail; the prisoner died.
The claimant was diagnosed with PTSD and filed a worker’s compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board issued a decision in October 2024 denying the claim, and the claimant appealed in 2026.
The general rule prior to June 4, 2025 was that emotional stress-induced psychological injury is compensable only if the stress was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment
Was the sergeant’s PTSD compensable?
A. Yes. In New York, a claimant no longer has to demonstrate that she was subjected to unusual stress.
B. No. It was not out of the ordinary for her to face medical emergencies and even death at work.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Croom v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, No. CV-24-1886 (N.Y. App. Div. 06/11/26), which concluded that the claim was not compensable.
First, the court acknowledged that as of June 4, 2025, New York law barred denying a PTSD claim solely based on a finding that the stress the claimant suffered was no greater than that which usually occurs in a normal work environment. Since the old rule was still in place when the Board issued its decision, however, the old rule applied to the correction sergeant’s claim.
Next, the court noted that the claimant escorted the prisoner to the hospital and performed CPR as the prisoner’s condition deteriorated. However, providing lifesaving measures was a part of her job duties. It was also not unusual to deal with medical emergencies at the facility, and deaths had occurred there.
“Though claimant knew the incarcerated individual in connection with her previous employment, she stated that her working relationship with that individual was no different from her relationships with other incarcerated individuals at the facility,” the court said. It affirmed the Board’s denial of the claim.
