If you think your job is stressful, imagine being a correctional officer during a prison riot, two power outages, and a harassment storm, all before lunch. That was the reality for Mr. Timothy Wotnoske (“Tim”), whose claim for PTSD, depression, and panic disorder recently became the star of a Wisconsin’s workers’ compensation drama.
Act One: The Claim
Tim filed for workers’ comp after enduring what sounds like the plot of a gritty Netflix series: riots, inmates rushing him, supervisors launching investigations, and sexual harassment from a coworker. At the initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) agreed with him, ruling that these stressors were beyond the usual “please don’t stab me” vibe of correctional work. Cue applause.
But then LIRC (Labor and Industry Review Commission) entered stage left and said, “Hold on, those incidents aren’t extraordinary—they’re just Tuesday” and reversed the decision. Not to be outdone, the Circuit Court swooped in like the hero in a legal soap opera and reinstated the ALJ’s award. Why? Because Wisconsin law says mental injuries must stem from stress of “greater dimension” than the norm for that job. And apparently, riots and harassment qualify as “greater dimension” when you’re not in a Marvel movie.
Act Two: The Law Behind the Drama
To appreciate this saga, let’s rewind to 1974, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided School District No. 1 v. DILHR. Before this case, mental injuries were only compensable if they followed a physical injury. The court changed that, ruling that the term “accident” in the Workers’ Compensation Act included mental injuries. But fearing a flood of claims from employees who “just had a bad day,” the court created the Extraordinary Stress Standard:
Non-traumatically caused mental injury must result from a situation of greater stress than the day-to-day emotional strain and tension which all employees must experience.
Translation: You can’t claim PTSD because your boss ate your yogurt. The stress must be objectively unusual; think bank teller witnessing a violent robbery, not accountant facing a tough audit. Later cases like Jenson v. Employers Mutual (1991) and Probst v. LIRC (1989) clarified that the test is objective, comparing the event to what similarly situated employees normally face.
Act Three: Why HR Should Care
Mental health claims are no longer rare unicorns. they’re more like slightly annoyed horses. Employers need to understand that PTSD claims aren’t just for soldiers and first responders; they’re showing up in correctional facilities, the construction and manufacturing sectors, and even high-pressure corporate roles. The standard is still high—stress must be objectively unusual—but courts are willing to challenge LIRC’s interpretations. Also of note, thanks to Wisconsin Act 29, full-time law enforcement officers and firefighters now face a much lower threshold for PTSD claims, requiring only a valid diagnosis linked to their work. This battle continues, however, for volunteer fire fighters and EMTs.
The Takeaway
Extraordinary stress isn’t just a buzzword, it’s a legal threshold. And as Wotnoske’s case shows, courts may side with employees when stressors pile up like bad sitcom plotlines. So next time someone says, “Work stress is killing me,” remember: In Wisconsin, it might actually be compensable if it’s stressful enough to make a superhero sweat.
Compliance Tips for HR
- Document the “Normal”: Keep clear records of what constitutes routine stress in your industry. This helps defend against claims or support them when stress truly exceeds norms.
- Train Supervisors: Harassment and investigations can tip the scale toward extraordinary stress. Prevention is cheaper than litigation.
- Offer Mental Health Support: Counseling programs aren’t just perks—they’re risk management tools. Lean on your EAP resources!
- Prepare for Litigation: Mental/mental claims are fact intensive. Expect expert testimony, job comparisons, and a deep dive into your workplace culture.
COMMENTS