Steve Russo v. Upper Darby Township (WCAB); No. 2093 C.D. 2024; Dec. 8, 2025; Judge Wolf
This case involves a claimant who worked as a police officer for the employer for 14 years and was involved in a life and death struggle with a suspect, who had allegedly beaten his girlfriend and fled from police. While on patrol, the claimant spotted the suspect and attempted to arrest him, but the suspect fled, and the claimant pursued him. A physical confrontation ensued, with the suspect placing the claimant in a headlock and lifting claimant’s feet off the ground. During the struggle, the suspect unsuccessfully attempted to get the claimant’s service weapon, and the claimant shot the suspect in the chest. The claimant’s attempt at CPR was futile.
The claimant went on administrative leave while the matter was being investigated. Ultimately, he returned to work and was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. However, in performing his job duties, he struggled psychologically. Ultimately, he was removed from work by a treating psychologist. He then filed a petition seeking to add post-traumatic stress disorder as one of the injuries listed on the Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP) issued by the employer.
The claimant presented testimony from his treating psychologist. However, the employer did not present a psychiatric expert. The workers’ compensation judge denied the petition, finding that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proving a “mental/mental” psychiatric injury claim.
The Appeal Board affirmed, and the claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the “physical/mental” burden of proof should have been applied and that, even under the “mental/mental” standard, the record supported his contention that he endured abnormal working conditions as a result of the incident.
The Commonwealth Court found that the physical/mental standard for a psychiatric injury was not applicable, but it found that the mental/mental standard applied and that the claimant met his burden of proof using that standard. The court held, as a matter of law, that the claimant was subject to abnormal working conditions as a result of the incident with the suspect. The court further agreed with the claimant that he was the only party that presented unrebutted expert testimony on his psychiatric injuries and that no valid reason was given to repudiate his credibility. The court, therefore, reversed the decisions below, finding that the conclusions of the workers’ compensation judge to be arbitrary, capricious and lacking in support in the record.
