It’s come to this. An administrative law judge actually supported the bonkers Worker’s Compensation claim described below. Gee, I wonder what political party that judge belongs to…

Behold:

Eugene Volokh at Reason reports:

“From the N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Board in Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, decided last week (opinion by Board Members Steven A. Crain, Renee L. Delgado, and Mark D. Higgins):

The claimant filed a C-3 (Employee Claim) on January 8, 2025, setting forth that she suffered an exacerbation of severe mental illness due to exposure of a racially insensitive wooden item in another staffer’s office on January 25, 2023….

At a hearing on March 7, 2025, the claimant testified that she was employed as a property manager on January 25, 2023 and was out of work at the time because in July 2021 there was a shooting at one of the units where a 3-year-old child was killed and she felt responsible for the death.

She stated that on January 25, 2023 she came to work and was sitting in the office, and she was told that a Mammy doll which depicts slavery was in the garage of the building where they worked. She indicated that the Mammy doll was not removed from the garage and she asked to go see it in the garage so she could remove it.

She stated that when she saw the doll she was overcome with emotions because it was so humiliating. She stated that she could not control her emotions and could not think clearly. She stated that the garage was the entryway to the building and was usually open and is often used as an entranceway from where an employee parks and comes into the building.

On cross-examination, the claimant testified that her office was not located in the garage which was used for storage and lockers for the maintenance people. She stated that her job was to inspect apartment units and serve as a liaison between the tenants and her employer. On redirect, the claimant testified that the Mammy doll at work indicated that her employer allows discrimination and hatred….”

[WordPress’s page-break feature has suddenly disappeared, but it was supposed to do here….]

“At the hearing on March 7, 2025, Tamara Van Wey, director of management, testified that she was told that the claimant saw a Mammy doll on January 25, 2023 in the garage and that it was leaning on the window of the garage. She stated that she did not see the Mammy doll herself so she does not know if there was other nicknacks on the windows of the garage….

The administrative law judge had “found that the claimant sustained an exacerbation of adjustment disorder and depression due to a work-related incident,” but the Board disagreed:

The SIF [State Insurance Fund] contends that the claimant has not demonstrated a work-related injury involving stress. The SIF argues that the claimant was exposed to a wooden mammy plaque in her employer’s garage. However, this level of offense does not rise to a compensable claim since the claimant should be expected to deal with minor stresses and offenses that a similarly situated person is expected to handle. The SIF also agues that the medical evidence is inconsistent in the claimant’s reporting of the incident….

In a claim for a psychological injury based on a diagnosis other than post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, and/or major depressive disorder, there must be evidence to show that “‘the stress that caused the injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment.'”

“It [i]s claimant’s burden to establish a causal relationship between his employment and his disability by competent medical evidence. To this end, a medical opinion on the issue of causation must signify ‘a probability as to the underlying cause’ of the claimant’s injury which is supported by a rational basis. ‘[M]ere surmise, or general expressions of possibility, are not enough to support a finding of causal relationship.'”

Here, we find that the claim is disallowed based on the insufficient evidence supporting causal relationship and the inconsistent reporting of the mechanism of injury by the claimant. While we agree that racist imagery does not belong in the workplace, and exposure to it can be the cause for anxiety, we do not find that the evidence supports causal relationship.

{The file contains a medical report from January 26, 2023, that noted that the claimant presented with increased anxiety, stress and depressed mood. It was also noted that the claimant reported that she recently saw a derogatory remark that was directed at her in a room at her place of employment. It was indicated that the claimant was very insulted and that she is depressed and anxious because of a very stressful work environment.

Dr. Campana, the claimant’s treating physician, evaluated the claimant on January 30, 2023, and the assessment was adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood.

On March 24, 2023, Dr. Campana examined the claimant indicating that the claimant reported that she was targeted at work which exacerbated her anxiety.

In a notice of decision filed January 14, 2025, the WCLJ found prima facie medical evidence for an exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions of adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety per the January 26, 2023 of Dr. Campana.

Dr. Joseph, the carrier’s consultant, examined the claimant on February 28, 2025, and noted that the claimant reported that she was racially harassed at work to the point of being emotionally overwrought and had to leave her position. Upon evaluation, he diagnosed the claimant with adjustment disorder with anxiety and severe depression. He noted that the claimant’s psychiatric symptoms are causally related to her work environment which caused distress to the point where she was unable to work. He stated that the work environment certainly exacerbated her existing mental health.}

Most importantly, the claimant saw Dr. Campana the very next day after the alleged incident in question and there is no mention of any incident like the claimant is alleging. Further, the report of that examination notes anxiety going back an entire year before the alleged incident, which renders the claimant’s testimony not credible.

Further, the claimant offers no persuasive evidence of other racist treatment at work. It is apparent from the reports that Dr. Campana was not informed of any exposure of a Mammy doll, which the claimant now maintains is the basis of her stress.

Further, Dr. Joseph found causal relationship but what the claimant reported was also inconsistent as she reported that she was harassed and yelled at by her employer but made no reference to a Mammy Doll, which again contradicts her testimony. Therefore, like Dr. Campana, Dr. Joseph’s opinion on causal relationship is not persuasive as it is based on the claimant’s version of events, which lacks credibility. Based on the totality of the evidence, we find that the claim is disallowed due to the lack of persuasive evidence supporting causal relationship….”

Wow.