Guess v. Sharp Manufacturing Co., 114 S.W.3d 480 (Tenn. 2003) (unanimous opinion).
This workers’ compensation case was tried in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Floyd Peete, Chancellor presiding. The plaintiff claimed post traumatic stress disorder as a result of blood from a laceration to a co-employee splattering on her hand. She claimed to have sustained mental injury as a result of her fear of contracting HIV.
The trial court found the claim compensable and awarded 38% disability to the body as a whole. When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court Special Workers’ Compensation Appeal Panel, the full Supreme Court issued an order directing that the case be transferred to the full Supreme Court for decision.
The Supreme Court, Justice Barker writing the opinion, reversed. The court found the record did not support a finding that the plaintiff had actually been exposed to HIV. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s case, holding that “a plaintiff seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a mental injury due to exposure to HIV must demonstrate actual exposure through a medically recognized channel of transmission.”
The only “proof” the plaintiff presented at trial of exposure to HIV was her suspicions that her co-worker had the HIV virus. Specifically, she testified her co-worker was “sick all the time; he had been isolated in the work environment; he had friends at work who had died of AIDS; he appeared very frail; he was on the mailing list of a gay rights organization; and he looked and acted gay.”
The Supreme Court noted that Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Law does provide compensation, in some instances, for purely mental injuries. To be compensable, a purely mental injury must result from an identifiable stressfull, work-related event which produced a sudden mental stimulus such as fright, shock or excessive, unexpected anxiety. This the plaintiff claimed she had experienced and she relied upon the court’s prior opinion in Ivey v. Trans Global Gas & Oil, 3 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. 1999). The court found the Ivey opinion distinguishable. In IveyGuess, however, “was not . . . exposed to any real danger.” The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s only proof that she was exposed to HIV was her subjective belief based upon prejudices and stereotypes. The court would not allow compensation to be awarded on such proof because “to do so would be to further the prejudices and stereotypes surrounding AIDS.” the employee was robbed at gunpoint while working at a convenience store. The court noted that this was a “real, undeniable danger.” The plaintiff in
In conclusion, the court unequivocally held that “a plaintiff seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a mental injury due to potential exposure to HIV must demonstrate actual exposure through a medically recognized channel of transmission.” The plaintiff in Guess had no such proof; and, therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and dismissed her claim.