EMPLOYMENT LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Sam MacDuffie
In Patterson v. Matanuska–Susitna Borough School District, 523 P.3d 945 (Alaska 2022), the
supreme court found that the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) and the Alaska
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (Commission) committed harmless error by (1)
failing to recognize the link between bodily fluids and mental distress, and (2) failing to consider
the details of a traumatic incident in determining whether the incident merited compensation for
mental injury. (Id. at 949). Patterson was a school nurse who responded to a choking emergency
at school. (Id.). Patterson tried to clear the child’s airway, exposing herself to the child’s bodily
fluids, and performed CPR until medical professionals took the child to the hospital. (Id.). The
child died as a result of the choking. (Id.). Patterson was paid disability benefits for three months,
but the school district denied her request to extend the payments. (Id.). At a hearing appealing her
denial, Patterson presented testimony that she suffered PTSD from both the contact with bodily
fluids, from which she feared she may have contracted a serious disease, as well as the stress of
the overall incident. (Id. at 951). The school district presented testimony that Patterson’s mental
injuries were not caused by the choking incident. (Id.). The Board found, and the Commission later
affirmed, that (1) the contact with bodily fluids was not sufficient to cause mental injury, (2) the
choking incident was not extraordinary or unusually stressful, and (3) Patterson did not show that
the bodily fluids or the stress of the choking event were the causes of the mental injury for which
she was seeking compensation. (Id. at 952). The supreme court found that the Board and
Commission erred on the first finding because contact with bodily fluids can cause mental injury
due to fear of becoming ill with a serious disease. (Id. at 954). The court also found error on the
second point because the Board considered only the extraordinary and unusual nature of choking
incidents in general, when it should have considered the specifics of this extreme incident. (Id. at
955–56). However, the court upheld the Board’s finding that that Patterson’s mental injury was
not caused by either the bodily fluids or the severity of the choking incident. (Id. at 957). Because
Patterson’s contact with bodily fluids and the uniquely stressful choking situation did not cause
her mental injury, the supreme court affirmed the Commission’s decision to deny Patterson
benefits, despite its harmless error of (1) failing to recognize the link between bodily fluids and
mental distress, and (2) failing to consider the details of a traumatic incident in determining
whether the incident merited compensation for mental injury. (Id. at 959).
