Juntunen v. Carlton County (W.C.C.A. Dec. 28, 2021)

In Juntunen v. Carlton County, the employee worked at a deputy sheriff for the self-insured employer. At the request of the employee’s attorney, Michael Keller, Ph.D. saw him for a psychological evaluation on August 20, 2019. Dr. Keller subsequently issued a narrative report, wherein he diagnosed the employee with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), opined that one of the substantial contributing causes to that condition was the employee’s work-related traumatic experiences, and also opined that he was unfit for duty. At that time, the employee was continuing to work for Carlton County. Following the issuance of Dr. Keller’s report, the self-insured employer placed the employee on administrative leave and completed a First Report of Injury.

 The self-insured employer denied primary liability for the claimed PTSD condition and subsequently arranged for the employee to be evaluated by Paul Arbisi, Ph.D. on July 20, 2020. Dr. Arbisi subsequently issued a narrative report dated September 8, 2020, wherein he opined that the employee “did not report current symptoms associated with PTSD during his evaluation.” The W.C.C.A. decision states that Dr. Arbisi “did not indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Dr. Keller’s August 2019 diagnosis of PTSD.” The decision further indicates that, during Dr. Arbisi’s deposition on April 26, 2021, he “stated that he looked at the 30-day window of time immediately preceding his evaluation[.]”

The case proceeded to hearing on May 13, 2021 and a Findings & Order was issued on June 3, 2021, wherein the Compensation Judge concluded that the employee did not sustain PTSD arising out of his employment on August 20, 2019 and denied the employee’s claims in their entirety. The employee appealed to the W.C.C.A., arguing that the Judge had erred as a matter of law in the application of the statutory presumption for PTSD in law enforcement officers contained in Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 15(e). The W.C.C.A. reversed and remanded. In its decision, the W.C.C.A. concluded that the presumption was applicable and that the self-insured employer had failed to rebut it. In support of that holding, the court reasoned, “To rebut, the employer needed to offer evidence that at the time of the employee’s disablement, he did not have a PTSD diagnosis.” As indicated, the case was remanded for additional findings regarding the claimed benefits.

The complete W.C.C.A. decision can be found at: https://mn.gov/workcomp-stat/2021/Juntunen%20-%2012-28-21.html. For more information about the implications of this case, please contact our office.