Mental disorders as a result of workplace bullying

It has been established by the legislator that «psychological stresses or strains that have developed over time» are not covered as an occupational injury. What about more acute mental stresses or strains? Can these be covered as an occupational injury?

This question was raised in Borgarting Court of Appeal's ruling of 3 June 2009. In this case, an educational psychological counsellor had developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of feeling bullied and harassed in the workplace.

The Court of Appeal based its decision on the fact that mental strain in the form of bullying and harassment was not normally regarded as an occupational injury. However, the court found that in very special cases it may be relevant to recognise mental disorders as occupational injuries. As an example, reference was made to a social security court decision in which an employee had developed post-traumatic stress disorder after two incidents of a temporary nature in which the use of very serious violence was threatened. The mental disorder was recognised as an occupational injury.

In the above-mentioned judgement, the mental disorders had lasted for a five-year period. As it had not been proven that the mental disorders were caused by an actual incident, the Court of Appeal found that there was no occupational injury.

The issue was raised again in Borgarting Court of Appeal's judgment of 26 January 2012. In this case, a consultant surgeon was placed on sick leave following a meeting with the hospital management. At the meeting, he was confronted with dissatisfaction with his work performance and was told that he would be reported to the Board of Health Supervision. Shortly afterwards, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Based on an overall assessment, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the stress to which the consultant was exposed in the meeting was not so unusual for the position that it could be considered an occupational injury. Even if the procedure deviated from the norm, this was not sufficient. The Court of Appeal referred to the Social Security Court's decision, as discussed above, and noted that the degree of severity was not as great in this case.

The judgements show that criticism in the workplace is something that people in higher positions must endure. For the mental disorders to be covered as an occupational injury, there must be criticism of far greater severity, such as serious threats and the like.