• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

Workers’ comp benefits denied: Court explains why employee’s claim was rejected

Carol Warner
By: Carol Warner
  • Share on

About the Author

For nearly two decades, Carol Warner has analyzed the legal and financial realities behind workplace decisions, covering employment law, benefits, payroll and HR technology. She translates complex legal updates, regulatory shifts and vendor claims into plain language that HR teams can act on. Her focus is simple: What does this mean for employers, and what should they do next? Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Show Less
Last Updated: February 1, 2023
3 minute engagement

Alaska’s highest court affirmed the denial of workers’ comp benefits for a school nurse who alleged that she suffered from PTSD after unsuccessful attempts to resuscitate a choking student.

In 2014, an elementary school student ran into the school nurse’s office screaming because a child was choking on his lunch. The nurse ran to assist the boy, who was turning blue when she arrived.

The nurse tried to clear the boy’s airway and helped perform CPR until emergency responders arrived. The boy was rushed to a hospital, where he died.

Nurse suffers injury, seeks comp benefits

During the resuscitation efforts, the nurse was exposed to the boy’s bodily fluids. Because of this, she had medical tests to screen for serious diseases shortly after the incident. Her results came back negative.

The school district reported the nurse’s injury to the state’s workers’ comp board, indicating that it affected “multiple body parts,” with the cause of injury shown as “absorption, ingestion or inhalation.”

As such, the nurse received temporary total disability for about three months.

Doctor notes excused the nurse from work because of “on-site trauma” and “situational stress.” She sought counseling after the incident and was initially diagnosed with adjustment disorder. The diagnosis was later changed to include PTSD.

The nurse then sought workers’ comp benefits for mental health problems caused by the incident. She said that she suffered PTSD due to being exposed to the boy’s bodily fluids, the resulting risk of disease and the mental stress of the incident.

The state’s workers’ compensation board denied the nurse’s claim, finding “the exposure to bodily fluid was not a sufficient physical injury to trigger a presumption of compensability” and that the mental stress caused by the incident wasn’t “sufficiently extraordinary or unusual to merit compensation.”

Moreover, the board heard testimony from the experts and was “most persuaded by the employer’s medical expert,” who testified that the nurse’s mental health problems were the result of a pre-existing mental condition rather than the incident.

The nurse appealed the state board’s decision. The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court.

Board’s 2 Errors Do Not Change Outcome

The state supreme court said the board made two errors, but that didn’t affect the outcome of the decision.

First, the board “failed to recognize the link between exposure to bodily fluids and mental distress over the risk of serious disease,” the court explained.

Second, the board “failed to consider the particular details of the child’s death and the nurse’s involvement” when it determined that the stress of responding to a choking child at school wasn’t “sufficiently extraordinary” to merit benefits for a mental injury.

Despite these errors, the court affirmed the board’s finding that the nurse was not entitled to benefits.

Why not? Based on the testimony of the medical expert, the board also found the incident was not the cause of the nurse’s mental health problems. The court said it “must respect the board’s credibility determinations and weight it gives conflicting evidence.”

Thus, the court affirmed the denial of benefits.

Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School Dist., No. S-17958, 2022 WL 17881551 (Alaska 12/23/22).

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Free Training & Resources

Webinars

The Recipe for Growth: Slim Chickens CEO Tom Gordon on Scalability and Succession Planning

Provided by Paycom

White Papers

Maven’s State of Women’s and Family Health Benefits — 2025 Report

Provided by Maven Clinic

White Papers

Investing in HR Software

Webinars

5 Compliance Signals HR Should Review Before 2027

Provided by Navex

SPONSORED CONTENT

Compensation

Recruiting

sponsored content
Salary Benchmarking: 6 Choices That Decide Whether Your Pay Data Holds Up

Courtesy of MARSH

Employment Law

Policy & Procedures

sponsored content
Policy Rollout: 4 Checkpoints That Show Employees Got the Message

Courtesy of NAVEX

Benefits

Staff Administration

sponsored content
PEO ROI: 3 Numbers to Know Before You Leave Patchwork HR

Courtesy of TRINET

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
Transgender Issue Rocks Prison – And It’s Not the Inmates

A federal appeals court has revived a prison employee’s Title VII claim that he was subjected to severe harassment at work based on his s...

  • Employment Law
Evolving Cannabis Laws: 3 Common Mistakes Companies Should Avoid

Regardless of how companies or managers may feel about the topic, cannabis (including recreational and medical marijuana, and any product c...

  • Employment Law
Don’t do these 3 things: Pregnancy policy costs this employer $400K

An Illinois skilled nursing facility’s pregnancy policy just cost it $400,000. According to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employmen...

  • Employment Law
Why You’ll See More Discrimination Claims and How to Handle Them | 2-Minute Video

You can expect an uptick in discrimination claims. Employees know more about discrimination and are more prepared than ever to file. And...

  • Employment Law
  • Payroll
New Back Wages Settlement: San Diego Deli to Pay $500K

A San Diego deli will pay more than $500,000 in back wages after a federal investigation found it paid workers a flat daily rate that fell ...

  • Employment Law
Employee: ‘Anti-bias training clashes with my religious beliefs’

What should an employer do if an employee says anti-bias training clashes with their religious beliefs? A new federal appeals court ruli...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.