Source: https://www.mass.gov/decision/donatelli-rebecca-v-state-board-of-retirement-cr-13-496
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:43:18+00:00

Document:
Appearance for Petitioner: James T. Morris, Esq.
Appearance for Respondent: Candace Hodge, Esq.
before the two year period. Within those two years, there is evidence that her boss and her boss’s boss were genuinely dissatisfied with applicant’s work performance and that she was afraid of being fired. In the face of what appear to be bona fide personnel actions by her employer within the two year period, applicant failed to prove that her underlying depression was aggravated to the point of disability by specific injuries or an uncommon job hazard.
Rebecca Donatelli appeals the September 24, 2013 decision of the State Board of Retirement denying her application for accidental disability retirement in which she claimed that a supervisor in her office had treated her so poorly as to make her psychologically unfit to perform her job. I held a hearing in the appeal on September 8, 2016 at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals, One Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts, which I recorded digitally. Ms. Donatelli was the only witness who testified. I gave the parties additional time to present further testimony concerning Ms. Donatelli’s interactions with the supervisor, but no further testimony was presented. The record closed when the parties filed closing briefs by October 31, 2016.
responsible for creating, administering, analyzing, and evaluating grants, and grant programs. Responsibilities include the ability to write grant proposals, federal reports, and detailed subject matter report breakdowns for the Executive Office [of Public Safety and Security], Federal Agencies, and partners. Program Coordinator II’s will be responsible to making award recommendations, administering grants, analyzing highway safety research and provide technical assistance for the Highway Safety Division, Office of Grants and Research, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Federal Agencies, as well as other safety Partners. This position also requires the ability to coordinate Conferences, and meetings, develop and present to large and small groups of people.
she began to have low mood and frequent tearfulness. This lasted for “several years” and was relieved when she was prescribed Zoloft, an antidepressant, by her primary care physician. A possible contributor to the depressive syndrome was dealing with one of her brothers as his representative payee for disability benefits and being the brunt of verbally abusive behavior in that role. She states that she did well until 2005 when she noted a return of low mood along with intense anxiety.
5. Ms. Donatelli’s office was outside Ms. Burgess-Hill’s. She heard her yell at her children on the phone. (Donatelli testimony.) She also thought that Ms. Burgess-Hill “seemed to single out employees whom she did not like and harass them in an attempt to get them to leave or to establish grounds to dismiss them.” (Ex. 9.) Ms. Donatelli heard her yell at another supervisor; that supervisor and his subordinate transferred out of the division. Although Ms. Burgess-Hill’s actions were not initially directed at Ms. Donatelli, they made her anxious. (Donatelli testimony; Ex. 9.) At some point, Ms. Donatelli thought Ms. Burgess-Hill was laughing at everything she said, including when her immediate supervisor was present.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your time and effort over the past 18 months in improving the operations of the Highway Safety Division. As you know, recently the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration conducted a Special Management Review of our Occupant Protection program because of the insufficient progress in meeting seat belt use goals. I am happy to report that the team found no “findings” during the review.
I am convinced that this is largely due to the outstanding manner in which you have performed your usual and additional duties during these recent months. I know this result has taken a good deal of effort that has led directly to improved programming.
I am sincerely grateful for you contribution of time and talent and I am looking forward to the good things to come out of this office in the future. Please accept this letter as a slightly tangible expression of the esteem and gratitude with which I view your work here at the Highway Safety Division. I will be sending a copy of this letter to Human Resources to be added to your personnel record.
she had developed a reputation in her office for taking off a great deal of time, as evidence[d] by her complaint that several coworkers were taking bets on when she would return to work from one of her leaves. These absences also began to attract the notice of her boss, whom she viewed as increasingly hypercritical of her, including accusing her of mistakes she had not actually made, exaggerating the importance of minor mistakes, and rebuking her in very harsh language. . . .
to these supervisory actions was to become increasingly dysfunctional and unable to sustain a work effort. She estimates that in the last year of her work, she was out on leave one week for every month, and often more. Her symptom profile during this period included low mood, somatic symptoms, poor sleep, poor appetite, intense anxiety and obsessive thoughts about her relationship with her boss and the possibility that she would lose her job.
Since October 5, 2009, you have been on a Remedial Development Plan. During the 30 day period in which you were given to complete the goals outlined in that plan, you were unsuccessful. As result we instituted a continuation of that plan on November 5 giving you a second chance to improve your performance. In the second plan, we were more specific in outlining expectations. As of November 18, based on deadlines specified in the second RDP, you are not on track to successfully meet the overall goals.
The cumulative pattern of poor performance causes undue stress on co-workers who must fill in the gap of work that you have failed to complete or is so late your co-workers must rush to meet deadlines you have missed. Failure to meet pertinent deadlines also jeopardizes our responsibilities of meeting state and federal reporting deadlines, contracting responsibilities and reimbursements. It also requires a level of micromanagement that should not be required [of] a person in your position as a Program Coordinator II.
As a result of this initial stage in progressive discipline, I have attached the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in an effort to guide you in improving your work performance.
This warning is being given so that you may have another opportunity to correct your work performance. If you fail to perform the essential functions of your job at the expected satisfactory level by ensuring that the duties and tasks listed in your job description are performed in a timely manner and in accordance with the attached CAP, further disciplinary action will be taken in the form of suspension and/or termination.
11/30/2009 @ 9:35 I received a call from Rebecca Donatelli (OGR) Ms. Donatelli told me she was calling because she received a verbal warning and some of the things in this warning were not true and so bad that it was making her sick, Rebecca said she was told [a] co-worker was going around the office making bets how long she would be out and when she would return to work.
Ms. Donatelli said she feels intimidated by Sheila and the only reason she sign[ed] the warning is because of intimidation she gets from Sheila; and wanted to know what she should do about the warning, I told her I can’t tell her what she need[ed] to do about the warning I would need to review what she received and speak with Irma [another Human Resources staff member] concerning this issue.
She wanted to know if she should call the union; again I can’t tell you what to do that is a decision you would have to make concerning the union; Ms. Donatelli said this is her notice to HR that she will be calling the union.
Despite all the assistance provided to you and the numerous opportunities you have been given to improve, you continue to not perform the essential functions of your job. As a result, you are hereby notified that you are suspended without pay for the following period: one day. The suspension will be served January 26, 2010.
Your continued failure to provide timely and accurate reporting of data as required by HSD [Highway Safety Division] and our federal funding sources has resulted in underreporting to federal agencies. The data reported to the federal agencies has been the basis for research studies and increased program oversight by our federal funders. Your continued failure to enter and verify correct data into the FFY2009 Traffic Enforcement Mobilization Grant database calls into question the integrity of the data for the effectiveness of our grant program and the research conducted by federal agencies. This has resulted in inaccurate reporting of data that has affected the credibility of the office and has impacted the ability of state decision makers to make informed fact-based decisions on program initiatives and funding levels.
The intent of this suspension is to define for you the seriousness of the situation so that you may take immediate corrective action. Continued failure to perform the essential functions of your job will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Patient has worked for 20 years in a state regulatory office, and describes being “harassed” by her direct supervisor who is trying to get her fired. Patient states this situation started three years ago, immediately after this individual assumed this position. She believes the reason why she is being harassed is because “my boss is evil.” Per her report there was no specific trigger for this situation, but she believes it is due to the fact that she used to be friends with the prior supervisor. Patient describes that her supervisor has also tried to get fired and harassed other individuals at work. She is currently unable to challenge these claims, and explore different explanations. She is currently on a three-day suspension for a “small mistake,” and worries that she will ultimately lose her job.
The patient was complaining of symptoms of depression and anxiety, including “meltdowns” that led to her staying in bed for days at a time. She was perseverative on her boss at work who she felt was treating her unfairly and had much anger about this. The team had some suspicion for a delusional process underlying these strong and preoccupying feelings toward her boss. However, collateral information from the patient’s boyfriend and another friend showed these thoughts were generally reality based.
For the past two years I feel like I have been receiving mixed messages for my supervisor and Director. I perform my work to what I believe is satisfactory and am told you are doing a good job and other times I am told my work is not satisfactory through written memos and written warnings and now a one day suspension.
Her record of attendance at work since 2009 has been very spotty, despite criticism for her boss and coworkers about her time on medical leave. She has demonstrated poor ability to concentrate on her work, or to cope with the stress of a harsh or unreasonably demanding boss. While it is hard to determine to what extent her supervisors’ criticism have been exaggerated, it is likely that they reflect some degree of diminished work performance over and above her many absences.
One would not expect an otherwise healthy person to be thrown into a state of severe anxiety and dysfunction by hearing her boss shout and curse over the telephone. However, it is clear that Ms. Donatelli had a prior history of depression and anxiety. There is also evidence that she demonstrated a high level of interpersonal sensitivity - i.e. vulnerability to perceived rejection or criticism from others. Despite these vulnerabilities, she had been doing well at work over a long period of time before the arrival of the new supervisor, but started to become much more symptomatic and dysfunctional after working under her for several months. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that her illness would have remained under adequate control had she not had to deal with her boss and the boss’ personal style.
Although the member first sought psychiatric treatment before her problems with a supervisor at work started, there seems to be substantial evidence that her problems after 2007 were at least in part precipitated by her difficulties doing her job and the alleged difficulties with an insensitive and harsh supervisor. As such, it is fair to presume that her condition and the problems she was treated for were at least in part precipitated or aggravated by the work environment. And these problems apparently have persisted until the present time.
The State Board of Retirement’s denial of Rebecca Donatelli’s application for accidental disability retirement is affirmed.
An applicant may receive accidental disability retirement when she can show permanent and disabling injuries that were sustained during the performance of essential job duties by “a specific incident or series of incidents” or as a product of “hazards undergone” that are not common to other professions. M.G.L. c. 32, § 7(1). Psychological disabilities in which causation is alleged to relate to numerous job-related events over a period of years have been analyzed by looking at both specific injurious events and general job hazards. See Fender v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 755, 894 N.E.2d 295 (2008) (applicant’s claim that job-related events caused him to be suicidal was evaluated both in terms of the hazards of his job and the particular events that led to his suicide attempt).
The first hurdle Ms. Donatelli must overcome is one of timing. The public employee retirement statute generally limits accidental disability retirement applications to those disabling injuries caused by events or hazards that occurred within two years of the filing of the retirement application, unless notice of an earlier event or hazard was given to the retirement board or some other exception applies. M.G.L. c. 32, § 7(1). Ms. Donatelli never submitted a notice of injury regarding any of the incidents at work that caused her to take time off from work due to psychological injuries.5 She has not asserted, or even addressed, whether any exception applies. She filed her application for accidental disability retirement on October 31, 2011. Therefore, she is limited to incidents that occurred on or after October 31, 2009. That does not make all prior incidents entirely irrelevant, however. Aggravation of an underlying condition to the point of disability can be the basis for accidental disability retirement. See Baruffaldi v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 337 Mass. 495, 501, 150 N.E.2d 269, 272 (1958)(aggravation of pre-existing disease is compensable under workers’ compensation and is also an injury for accidental disability retirement purposes).
Ms. Donatelli suffered from depression before she began experiencing psychological problems from her treatment in the workplace. Thus, her application was based on aggravation of an underlying condition – and was so understood by the medical panel. The difference that the two year limit makes is that any harm Ms Donatelli suffered before October 31, 2009 must be treated as part of her underlying condition. Therefore, the issue is whether anything that occurred at work on or after October 31, 2009 has been shown to have aggravated her underlying condition to the point of permanent disability.
Ms. Donatelli had the burden to prove that psychological damage she suffered at work was the “natural and proximate cause” of any mental or emotional disability she suffers. Campbell v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 17 Mass. App. Ct. 1018, 460 N.E.2d 213 (1984). She had to show that her psychological injuries were not caused by the apparently bona fide personnel actions she experienced in her last year or so on the job. This she could have done by showing that the personnel actions were not bona fide and the treatment she received at work was worse than the commonplace annoyances of dealing with a difficult boss. Alternatively, even if the personnel actions were to some extent bona fide, she could have shown that they were undertaken as part of an intentional effort to cause her emotional distress. Ms. Donatelli has not made the necessary showing. From November 2009 though January 2010, Ms. Donatelli’s supervisor, Ms. Hymoff, and Ms. Hymoff’s boss, Ms. Burgess-Hill, issued Ms. Donatelli warnings about her work performance and suspended her for one day. On their face, these actions appear to be bona fide personnel actions. Ms. Donatelli has claimed that some of the supposed performance issues were not true, and in one instance were known by Ms. Burgess-Hill to be untrue (although the incident involving the allegations that police departments were complaining about awaiting payments that were Ms. Donatelli’s responsibility occurred in 2008, and thus before the October 31, 2009 cutoff). (Finding 42.) If this were proven, then at least some of the personnel actions would not be bona fide, and if the personnel actions were based on knowingly false charges, then this would amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress (although she would not necessarily have to show this if the actions were not bona fide). But this is not clear. The November 2009 verbal warning was for failure to meet certain job performance goals. Ms. Donatelli responded that some of the items in the warning were untrue. But the record does not reflect which items Ms. Donatelli thought were untrue or provide any evidence one way or the other as to whether the items were true. Similarly, with the written warning issued the following month, there are two bare bones versions of Ms. Donatelli’s performance. Both Ms. Hymoff and Ms. Burgess-Hill warned her for poor performance and missed deadlines; she responded that she had not missed deadlines. The warning and the response do not provide enough information for me to tell whether the performance criticisms were true on not, and thus Ms. Donatelli has failed to show that this warning was not bona fide. Moreover, her claim that she had met deadlines does not, by itself, show that her superiors used knowingly false bases for issuing a warning. The suspension imposed in January 20109 has also not been shown to lack a bona fide basis. Ms. Donattelli grieved it, claiming that one aspect of her allegedly poor performance involved a data entry task that she was unaware was principally her responsibility. However, the memo setting forth the reasons for the suspension discusses describes Ms. Donatelli’s “continued failure to provide timely and accurate reporting of data,” which suggests that this matter had been raised with her before, and so the extent of her responsibility should not have come as a surprise.
It is unclear whether anything happened at work after January 2010 that caused Ms. Donatelli to be hospitalized in September 2010 and to effectively stop working after that. Her personnel file contains numerous corrective action plans entered into before that in which her supervisors attempt to address what they perceive as failures on Ms. Donatelli’s part to live up to job performance expectations. Her personnel file lacks any subsequent corrective action plans, although there is a suggestion in a memo Ms. Donatelli wrote that a corrective action plan was implemented for February 2010. (Finding 42.) Rather, her personnel file documents that, around this time, Ms. Donatelli was given some accommodations to help her improve her performance. Some of her tasks were reassigned to others, and she was given more flexibility about staying later to finish her work (although it is not entirely clear how flexible management was on this). Thus, her job stress should have been eased somewhat. The only other likely event that might have put Ms. Donatelli over the edge was a performance evaluation in August 2010. (Finding 34.) Presumably, the evaluation was negative, but it is not in the record, and Ms. Donatelli did not testify about it or attribute her September 2010 hospitalization to it. All that remains is the hospitalization itself, and Ms. Donatelli’s explanation to hospital staff that she had a breakdown because of an evil boss who was trying to get her fired.
Thus, at most, there appears to have been some criticism of Ms. Donatelli’s work that was genuine (at least in the minds of her supervisors) coupled with some unprofessional treatment of her by one of her bosses, who at other times could be complimentary – and no particular event or events in her last year or so of employment that pushed her underlying depression into a state in which she could no longer perform her job. Not only is this a muddled picture, but the specific instances of cruel treatment that Ms. Donatelli placed at a particular time all occurred before October 31, 2009, while the criticism of her performance, which appears to have been genuinely held by at least her immediate boss, was a culmination of three years of complaints of poor performance. The evidence strongly suggests that Ms. Donatelli was eventually worn down by the longstanding criticism of her job performance (and her fear of losing her job) more than by anything else. This would make her claim one based on her reaction to bona fide personnel actions. It is not an adequate basis to support an application for accidental disability retirement.
This case has not been easy to resolve. I note that it would have helped if one or both parties had presented witnesses other then Ms. Donatelli who could have testified to the treatment she had received from Ms. Burgess-Hill. While there is no requirement that an applicant’s claim of mental health disability caused by poor treatment by a supervisor be corroborated, the likelihood that there is more than one possible perspective on an employer-employee dispute makes testimony from additional witnesses potentially helpful to either side. Compare Khramova v. Boston Ret. Bd., Docket No. CR-11-522 (Mass. Div. of Admin. Law App., Jan. 2, 2015) (teacher granted accidental disability retirement introduced evidence of motivation for harassment by her supervisor) with Brewer v. New Bedford Ret. Bd., Docket No. CR-15-432( Mass. Div. of Admin. Law App., Nov. 17, 2017) (dispatcher denied accidental disability retirement when she and her fellow employees presented diametrically opposing testimony about whether she had been harassed).
In sum, because the evidence fails to show that Ms. Donatelli’s underlying depression was aggravated to the point of disability by harassment by a supervisor that was not part of a bona fide criticism of her work, I conclude that she has not demonstrated eligibility for accidental disability retirement. I therefore affirm the decision of the State Board of Retirement denying Rebecca Donatelli’s accidental disability retirement application.
1 Ms. Burgess-Hill is no longer employed by the Office of Grants and Research. She applied for accidental disability retirement following a car accident. After Ms. Donatelli’s hearing, I realized that I had decided Ms. Burgess-Hill’s accidental disability retirement appeal. No issue was raised in that appeal concerning Ms. Burgess-Hill’s in-office behavior; the issue decided was whether she was in the performance of her job duties when she had the car accident. See Burgess-Hill v. State Bd. of Retirement, Docket No. No. CR-15-665 (Mass. Div. of Admin. Law App., Mar. 24, 2017). I have not relied on any information learned in Ms. Burgess-Hill’s appeal in deciding this appeal.
2 The portion of Ms. Donatelli’s performance evaluating for 2008 in the record reflects that she been given an overall “meets” rating. Her response notes that she had been rated “below,” presumably on one of the elements on which she was evaluated. On this she commented, “I also feel this below rating stems back to the internal policy memo. I have not and do not tell anyone outside the agency internal information.” (Ex. 7.) This policy memo is not in the record and there is no explanation as to what element of Ms. Donatelli’s performance was rated as “below” standards.
3 The record does not show clearly which grievance she withdrew.
4 The record does not reflect whether Ms. Donatelli had been retired for superannuation by then.
5 The chances that an employee who is suffering psychological harm from mistreatment by a supervisor will file a notice of injury are undoubtedly vanishingly small. There is a much greater chance that such a person will do what Ms. Donatelli did and complain to Human Resources. The retirement statute’s notice of injury requirement at M.G.L. c. 32, § 7(1) makes no distinction, however, between physical and psychological injury and does not provide an alternative for employees who are injured in some way by their boss. I must follow the law as it is written. Any exceptions must be made by the legislature.
6 There does not seem to be a dispute that Ms. Donatelli is permanently disabled. That is what the medical panel found. The retirement board did not address this finding, but instead denied her application solely because, in its view, she had not demonstrated work-related causation. The panelists all thought that her work environment was the cause of her disability. This conclusion on causation is only “some evidence” that was to have originally been considered by the retirement board and now by the Division of Administrative Law Appeals. The ultimate conclusion is to be based on all the medical and non-medical evidence. See Blanchette v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 483, 481 N.E.2d 216, 219 (1985). I accept that, in all likelihood, workplace conditions ultimately caused Ms. Donatelli’s permanent disability. Her underlying depression began with family issues, but by May 2009, the brother who had been abusive towards her was no longer in her life. (Finding 20.) Thus, any further deterioration was likely related to her work environment. I do not rely to any extent on the opinions of he panelists on this issue, however, because they had only Ms. Donatelli’s version of workplace events. They were aware that Ms. Donatelli’s boss’s boss was critical of her performance; had they had her personnel file, they would have known that Ms. Donatelli’s immediate boss was also critical of her performance. They would also have learned both the details of the criticisms made and of the efforts of her bosses to accommodate Ms. Donatelli’s psychological condition – information that presents a more complicated view than just that a particular boss was out to get Ms. Donatelli. Thus, the medical panel was not in possession of sufficient information to sort out whether what undermined Ms. Donatelli’s mental state was impermissible harassment or genuinely held criticism of her job performance. The panel also did not limit its consideration to events that occurred within two years of the filing by Ms. Donatelli for accidental disability retirement.

References: § 7
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v.