| IN RE: DANIEL B. RAMOS | ) | DOCKET NO. 91 6906 |
| ) | ||
| CLAIM NO. N-097749 | ) | DECISION AND ORDER |
| ) |
- APPEARANCES
- Claimant, Daniel B. Ramos, by
- Morse & Bratt, per
- Ben Shafton and Gideon Caron, Attorneys
- Employer, RAMS Specialized Security Service, Inc., by
- Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, per
- Ralph C. Pond, Attorney
- Department of Labor and Industries, by
- The Office of the Attorney General, per
- Jeffrey L. Adatto and Karen M. Wilson, Assistants
This is an appeal filed by the claimant, Daniel B. Ramos, on December 23, 1991 from an order of the Department of Labor and Industries dated November 14, 1991 which rejected coverage for a condition described as "occupational stress" on the basis that RCW 51.08.142 excluded coverage for such conditions. That order further affirmed a Department order of March 21, 1991 which rejected coverage on the basis that there was no proof of a specific injury; that the condition was not the result of an industrial injury as defined by the industrial insurance laws; and that the condition was not an occupational disease as contemplated by RCW 51.08.140. Affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to RCW 51.52.104 and RCW 51.52.106, this matter is before the Board for review and decision on timely Petitions for Review filed by both the Department of Labor & Industries and the employer to a Proposed Decision and Order issued on October 29, 1992, in which the order of the Department dated November 14, 1991 was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Department with instructions to accept Mr. [2] Ramos' claim as a mental health condition which was a result of two separate industrial injuries.
The Board has reviewed the evidentiary rulings in the record of proceedings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed and said rulings are hereby affirmed.
We feel that the issue and the evidence presented by the parties are adequately set forth in the Proposed Decision and Order. We will reiterate pertinent facts solely to explain the decision which we here reach. We have granted review because we believe that Mr. Ramos' mental condition was not the result of an industrial injury as defined by RCW 51.08.100, and it is excluded as an occupational disease pursuant to RCW 51.08.142.
Daniel Ramos was a security guard who was approximately 55 years of age at the time of his alleged industrial injury. As a security guard with RAMS Specialized Security Service, Inc., he was required to check fire equipment and boiler facilities to assure that the Bonneville Power Command Station in Vancouver, Washington, was operating properly. Among other duties, his function was to timely detect equipment malfunctions which could result in millions of dollars in property loss.
In July 1990, Mr. Ramos failed to report a CPU failure which occurred on his shift. Mr. Ramos received a corrective action counseling session from Mr. Adams, his supervisor. No further disciplinary action was contemplated as a result of this incident.
On December 17, 1990, Mr. Ramos failed to discover a malfunction in the fire alarm system. This problem was not discovered until the Fire [3] Department arrived at the complex after being notified of a potential fire by the automated reporting function of that system. Mr. Ramos was once again counseled about his responsibilities.
On December 24, 1990, Mr. Ramos was once again required to inspect the boilers at portions of the Bonneville station. It was his duty to contact the appropriate personnel if he discovered that the boilers were not working. In his daily report for December 24, 1990, he wrote that the boiler pressure was at 0 psi. This would indicate that the boilers were off line. Nonetheless, Mr. Ramos failed to contact the appropriate personnel to fix the equipment. The boiler problem was not discovered until after Mr. Ramos was relieved by the next shift. At a later time, Mr. Ramos altered his report to coincide with his position that the boilers were operating properly. This alteration was evident to his superiors because the top copy of the report was changed but the carbon copies were still in their original state.
Mr. Ramos' employment was terminated on January 7, 1991 for his lack of attention to job duties and dishonesty. After being discharged, Mr. Ramos exhibited a major depression which worsened to the point that he was hospitalized for up to ten days in both the months of January and February 1991. Mr. Ramos became lethargic and admitted to homicidal ideations directed at his former supervisors.
DECISION
Our Industrial Insurance Act covers both industrial injuries and occupational diseases which occur as a proximate result of performing work duties. When on-the-job stress is the cause of a mental condition [4] or mental disease, the resultant condition is not an occupational disease pursuant to RCW 51.08.142. However, mental conditions may be compensable if they are the result of industrial injuries. WAC 296-14-300(2). After reviewing the sequence of events, we are convinced that Mr. Ramos' mental health condition was not the result of an industrial injury as contemplated by RCW 51.08.100.
Mr. Ramos does assert that his termination from employment should be construed as an industrial "injury" and the cause of his mental health condition. He did not produce any evidence to persuade us that the dismissal interview or the events leading to the dismissal were traumatic in nature. When Mr. Ramos was fired, he was presented with a letter which was an all-inclusive recitation of the reasons for his termination. Nothing was discussed at that meeting because the letter was considered to address all of the issues the employer desired to communicate to Mr. Ramos. The discharge interview was nothing more than announcing the inevitable result of his failure to perform his work duties. This may have been upsetting to Mr. Ramos, but it cannot be construed as a sudden tangible happening of a traumatic nature, as contemplated by RCW 51.08.100. Mr. Ramos had been counseled previously regarding failures to perform his duties. He was aware that the most recent problem involving the failure to report the boiler problem would lead to further, and perhaps, more serious discipline. He attempted to falsify his report to stave off these consequences. To be sure Mr. Ramos was anxious about these events, but the actual dismissal was, if anything, anticlimactic and void of any traumatic impact either physically or mentally. [5]
Further, the events leading up to his termination occurred over a six-month period, commencing with his failure to perform his job duties in July, 1990. Again, a worker's mental reaction to failed job performances and disciplinary actions related to such failures over such a period of time does not establish the suddenness or trauma sufficient to meet the requirements of an industrial injury.
After consideration of the Proposed Decision and Order, the Petitions for Review filed thereto, the claimant's Reply to Petitions for Review, and a careful review of the entire record before us, we are persuaded that Mr. Ramos neither suffered from an industrial injury as contemplated by RCW 51.08.100, nor an occupational disease in view of the prohibition of coverage by RCW 51.08.142.
We hereby make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 18, 1991, the Department of Labor and Industries received Daniel Ramos' application for benefits for anxiety and depression that Mr. Ramos alleged was the result of an injury sustained during the course of his employment with Rams Specialized Security Services, Inc.
On March 21, 1991, the Department issued an order rejecting Mr. Ramos' claim for the reasons that there was no proof of a specific injury at a definite time and place in the course of employment; that his condition was not the result of an industrial injury as defined by the industrial insurance laws; and, that his condition was not the result of an occupational disease as defined by RCW 51.08.140. On April 9, 1991, the Department received Mr. Ramos' protest and request that it reconsider its March 21, 1991 order. [6]
On November 14, 1991, the Department issued an order affirming its March 21, 1991 order, and additionally rejecting Mr. Ramos' claim for occupational stress as being excluded under RCW 51.08.142. On December 23, 1991, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals received Mr. Ramos' notice of appeal from the Department's November 14, 1991 order.
2. In 1990, Daniel Ramos worked for RAMS Specialized Security, Inc. as a security guard. Since June 1990 Mr. Ramos suffered a mild to moderate depression. This mental health disorder affected Mr. Ramos' ability to concentrate.
3. In July 1990 Mr. Ramos failed to perform his security duties when he did not notice that there was a CPU failure at the Bonneville Power Station in Vancouver, Washington. He was subjected to a corrective action counseling session with his supervisor. On December 17, 1990 Mr. Ramos failed to perform his security duties when he did not detect a problem with the fire alarm system at the Bonneville Power Plant in Vancouver, Washington. He once again received supervisory counseling about his job responsibilities. Mr. Ramos further neglected his job duties when he failed to take proper action on December 24, 1990 when the boiler system was inoperable, for which he was suspended from duty. Mr. Ramos falsified his report to his employer concerning the operation of that boiler system. His employment was terminated on January 7, 1991 for lack of attention to job duties and dishonesty.
4. The events leading up to Mr. Ramos' termination and the termination itself were not sudden happenings of a traumatic nature which produced or aggravated Mr. Ramos' underlying mental health condition. From their inception, Mr. Ramos was cognizant that his falsification of documents and poor work performance would lead to termination.
5. Mr. Ramos' suspension and termination were not the proximate cause of his mental health condition nor did they aggravate his underlying mental health condition. [7]
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter to this appeal.
- Daniel Ramos' mental health condition was not the result of an industrial injury as defined by RCW 51.08.100.
- The order of the Department of Labor and Industries dated November 14, 1991, which rejected coverage pursuant to RCW 51.08.142 for a mental health condition described as occupational stress and affirmed its March 21, 1991 order, which rejected Mr. Ramos' claim for the reasons that there was no proof of a specific injury at a definite time and place in the course of employment; that his condition was not the result of an industrial injury as defined by the industrial insurance laws; and, that his condition was not the result of an occupational disease as defined by RCW 51.08.140, was correct and is affirmed.
It is so ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of March, 1993.
BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE APPEALS
/s/
S. FREDERICK FELLERChairperson
/s/
FRANK E. FENNERTY, JR.Member
/s/
PHILLIP T. BORKMember