Police film case opens door to trauma claims

The Pandora's box of worrying work activities seems bottomless. SELWYN PARKER reports.

The $242,000 judgment in favour of police video producer George Brickell raises a monumental employment issue: what price is to be put on workplace-induced emotional trauma?

Although the award to Mr Brickell, albeit still on appeal, was for the after-effects of 15 years of filming grisly videos - which is not exactly your everyday job - the implications of the High Court judgment clearly reach far beyond the police into many nooks and crannies of the workplace.

For many managers, this is a legal Pandora's box and possibly a financial timebomb.

"The writing is on the wall," says employment lawyer Jim Roberts, of Garry Pollak & Co.

"Employers must take these things seriously and look at the circumstances of individual employees."

The facts of the case seem fairly simple. Mr Brickell saw such horrible stuff at close quarters for such a long time that he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, which gives him nightmares, makes him prone to weep and has reduced his capacity to work.

The implications of the case are, however, complex. Fair enough, Mr Brickell's job does not sound like much fun but how many in the police work in equally grim situations that could produce similar or worse side-effects?

Clearly, it is routine for police to attend murders, suicides, fatal road crashes and other ghastly events, not to mention to get beaten up, something that surely leaves emotional scars that endure long after the physical wounds have healed.

It is not so long ago, after all, that undercover police received compensation for the consequences of being exposed to drugs. Given the financial implications, it is hardly surprising that New Zealand Police is appealing against the Brickell judgment.

The issue is essentially one of work-related stress and it is big overseas, especially in Britain. For example, what price should be put on the stress suffered by train-drivers who, through no fault of their own, run over drunk pedestrians.

Mr Brickell's is not the first case of its kind, although it is the most significant. If post-traumatic stress disorder were to become a widespread legitimate claim for damages, does this mean that a scale would have to be established to decide how much a particular disorder is worth, as the ACC already does in assessing compensation for long-term physical trauma?

For example, so many trauma points might have to be awarded to police, doctors, ambulance-workers, and towies who have attended fatal car crashes over a specific number of years. Perhaps points should be higher for the homicide squad.

Pathologists might qualify, too, because their entire trade revolves around death, and so on.

Or will the amount of damages be tied to the scale of the suffering?

"Two individuals will react completely differently to identical circumstances," says Mr Roberts.

If so, a tougher personality may not get a cent while a more sensitive soul will cry all the way to the bank.

Where does it start? Many jobs carry unpleasant emotional side-effects which may only emerge after years of exposure to them.

Can long-term work in A&E cause some form of disorder? Do hospice staff suffer trauma from all that death? Could middle managers claim emotional disorders because of the trauma of making a lot of staff redundant?

Where does it stop? Long-term bar staff could argue that years of exposure to alcohol turned them into drunks. Meter readers could say they lost the ability to sleep because they were frightened of all those pitbulls on their beat.

While no one is predicting absurd claims like athletes suing the coach for the trauma of defeat, the claims floodgates could be opening here.

Work-related stress bears a big meaning, legally speaking. A Telecom New Zealand employee won compensation, reportedly for varicose veins suffered from having to work in a building that allegedly moved.

An Auckland City Council meter reader really was compensated for stress after being bitten by a dog. And a law firm employee won a case for damages from being confined in an unsuitable workstation over a long period.

The Brickell judgment lifts the bar further.

"[The case] requires employers to exercise foresight," says Mr Roberts. "It's a signal that they have a duty of care."

However, there is surely also an onus on employees to stick up for themselves and make a case before stress gets too deep. This appears to be the basis of the New Zealand Police appeal.