Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a delayed or prolonged response to enormous stress or threat.[1] Given the causes and manifestations of PTSD, which are not primarily physical in nature, one can speculate whether we can talk about injury in the context of this diagnosis. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court[2] concluded that yes – PTSD can even be classified as an occupational injury under certain conditions.

In that decision, the Supreme Court dealt with a case, in which an excavator operator was working on the construction of the Blanka tunnel, there was a landslide and the excavator operator was buried underneath it. This tragic event was witnessed by his colleague, a tunnel builder, who was waiting inside the lorry and about to drive into the excavated hole to take out the soil. Although this employee did not see the landslide itself (he only observed the dust that subsequently appeared in the air), as a result of the fatal incident, he began to experience health problems that resulted in his inability to work. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he was eventually declared disabled in the third degree. The employee subsequently demanded in court that the employer pay him compensation related to the work injury, but the employer refused to do so – moreover, the insurance company argued in the proceedings that the elements of an occupational injury were not fulfilled in this case.

The Supreme Court recalled that in order for an employee to be entitled to compensation for damage resulting from an accident at work, three prerequisites must be met cumulatively:

• damage to the employee’s health or his death (occupational injury) occurring during or in direct connection with the performance of work tasks,
• the occurrence of damage and
• the causal link between the occupational injury and the occurrence of damage.

It should be noted that the nature of liability for damage in the event of an occupational injury is objective – it is not relevant whether the employer was at fault or whether the employer breached any legal obligation.

An occupational injury is defined by the Labour Code as an injury to the health or the death of an employee caused by a short-term, sudden and violent action of external influences during the performance of his/her work tasks or in direct connection with it, independently of his/her will[3].

According to settled decision-making practice, an accident may occur even in cases where the action of external forces is apparently absent. These include, for example, cases of sudden impairment of health caused by sudden exertion of strength or unusual effort, where the work performance exceeds the limits of the work normally performed, or where the work is carried out under adverse circumstances. Moreover, the damage to health itself does not have to be physical in nature; it can also be psychological.

The Supreme Court supplements the established interpretation and goes even further: according to the Supreme Court, damage to an employee’s psychological health may occur as a result of traumatic events in the workplace, which may include unreasonably (extremely) harsh criticism by a supervisor or, for example, aggressive behaviour by a fellow employee. The employee does not necessarily have to be directly affected by the traumatic event, it is sufficient if he or she witnesses it (provided that the event has caused him or her an extremely intense stressful experience, which has damaged his or her mental health as a result).

In this case, the employee perceived only the incidental manifestations of the incident in the form of stirred-up dust, so the Supreme Court concluded that the employee was not a direct witness to the incident and therefore was not entitled to the compensation sought. However, the decision in question has shifted the existing interpretation of the definition of occupational injury, which now opens the door to other potential motions. This creates a risk for employers that, in the event of serious or even fatal workplace accidents, they will be obliged not only to satisfy the claims of injured employees or their surviving dependants, but also the claims of other employees who witnessed the incident.

[1] gesundheit.gv.at. NZIP.CZ. Posttraumatická stresová porucha: diagnóza [online]. [cit. 2024-03-28]. Available from: https://www.nzip.cz/clanek/709-posttraumaticka-stresova-porucha-diagnoza

[2] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 January 2024, Case No. 21 Cdo 3408/2022

[3] See Section 271k of Act No. 262/2006 Coll., the Labour Code