Janine Tea v. Ramsey County, Self-Insured, Relator

Minn.April 17, 2024No. A231207

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal from Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirming compensation judge decision

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed that the employee has a compensable post-traumatic stress disorder claim, rejecting the employer's challenge to the compensation judge's credibility findings and expert diagnosis.

Excerpt

1. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals' affirmance of the compensation judge's finding that the employee has compensable post-traumatic stress disorder is not manifestly contrary to the evidence because the compensation judge based his conclusion on the employee's credibility and the persuasiveness of an expert diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. In accord with our decision in Smith v. Carver County, 931 N.W.2d 390, 396–97 (Minn. 2019), compensation judges may review the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria when considering the persuasiveness of expert reports, but judges may not use those criteria to make their own diagnosis of a claimant's condition. Affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules in Favor of County Employee's PTSD Workers' Compensation Claim** Janine Tea, a Ramsey County employee, developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from her job and filed a workers' compensation claim. The county fought against her claim, arguing that her PTSD wasn't work-related or compensable under workers' compensation law. A compensation judge initially ruled in Tea's favor, finding that her PTSD was indeed caused by her work and qualified for workers' compensation benefits. Ramsey County appealed this decision, but the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals upheld the original ruling. The court found that the judge had properly relied on Tea's credibility as a witness and expert medical testimony that diagnosed her with work-related PTSD. This ruling is significant for workers because it confirms that mental health conditions like PTSD can qualify for workers' compensation benefits when they're caused by workplace conditions. The decision shows that courts will protect employees' rights to compensation for psychological injuries, not just physical ones. Workers who develop mental health problems due to their job duties or workplace trauma may be entitled to benefits, including medical treatment and wage replacement, just like employees with physical injuries.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Workers’ Compensation cases

Minn.Oct 2025

1. The employee's injury occurred "in the course of" employment for the purpose of Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 1 (2024), because the undisputed facts show that the employee sustained the injury within an hour of the end of the workday, the injury occurred at the workplace, and the employee was engaged in employment-related activity. 2. Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 9 (2024), which excludes from workers' compensation liability injuries that occur while an employee is participating in a voluntary employer-sponsored recreational program, applies only to employer programs that are for the benefit of employees. Affirmed.

Plaintiff Win

Deborah Jane Clapp, Respondent, vs. Dr. Lisa Sayles-Adams, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Minneapolis ...

Minn.Jan 2025

Defendant Win

Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors.

Read Full Opinion More Ramsey County Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.