Mental Stress Claims in New York: Who Actually Has a Case

If you are in crisis or thinking about harming yourself, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline — any time, free and confidential. If you are not in immediate danger but you are struggling, that line can help too.

Most articles about work stress and workers' compensation say some version of the same thing: work stress can be a compensable injury in New York, and you may be entitled to benefits.

Both halves of that are true. Neither one is useful, because the hard part of a New York mental stress claim is not whether such claims exist. It is whether yours is one of the ones that works.

Here is the honest version. A great many workers who are genuinely suffering because of their jobs may not have a viable mental stress claim in New York. And what separates the strong cases from the weak ones has almost nothing to do with how badly the person is struggling — it turns on your diagnosis, your job, and what actually happened at work.

This article walks through what an attorney is actually listening for.

What is on this page:

• The short version — the two groups that skip the hardest test, and the 30-day trap
• What "mental stress" means in a comp claim
• The standard that decides most of these cases
• Two exceptions that change everything — first responders, and three specific diagnoses
• Why your diagnosis is the biggest single factor
• What happened matters more than how bad you feel
• The defense that ends cases outright — and the two ways around it
• The 30-day clock almost nobody knows about
• The single most useful thing you can do
• Winning and recovering are not the same thing
• What a strong claim usually looks like
• Where these cases are actually fought now
• Key takeaways

The Short Version

Two groups of workers do not have to clear New York's hardest mental stress standard:

• Emergency first responders whose condition came out of an emergency at work — exempt since 2017, regardless of diagnosis.
• Anyone diagnosed with PTSD, acute stress disorder, or major depressive disorder — relieved of that standard since 2025, whatever their job.

If you are in either group, the argument that defeats most mental stress claims cannot be used against you. That is not the same as an automatic win — you still have to tie the condition to specific work-related stress — but it removes the obstacle that stops most claims. Everyone else faces the standard described below, which is hard but not the end of the analysis.

One more thing, because it costs more people a case than the legal standard does: you have 30 days to tell your employer the stress was caused by your job. Saying you are ill, or applying for FMLA, is not the same statement.

If you would rather answer a few questions than read the whole thing, our free work stress assessment walks the same ground in about two minutes.

First: What "Mental Stress" Means in a Comp Claim

If a physical work injury caused your depression or anxiety — you hurt your back, you have been in pain and out of work for a year, and now you are depressed — that is a consequential psychological injury attached to an existing claim. It is a different situation, it is generally an easier one, and it is not what this article is about.

A pure mental stress claim is characterized by two features:

• A mental mechanism. No physical impact. The cause was purely emotional — what you saw, what was done to you, what you were exposed to at work.
• A mental diagnosis. A psychological or psychiatric condition diagnosed by a provider.

That is not a checklist of elements you have to prove. Every injury has a mechanism and a diagnosis of some kind. The point is narrower, and it is the reason this article exists: that pairing is how you know which set of rules applies to you. When the mechanism and the diagnosis are both mental, a separate body of rules kicks in — the ones described below. If either one of them is physical, the ordinary comp rules apply instead, not these.

The Standard That Decides Most of These Cases

For a pure mental stress claim, New York has long required the worker to prove that the stress they experienced was greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers in a normal work environment.

That is not the test most people assume. It is not a scale running from not that bad to very bad — it is a scale running from normal to abnormal, and it is measured objectively. The question is not how intensely you felt what happened; it is whether the stressor itself was out of the ordinary for your job, compared against what other people doing that work actually deal with.

The comparison group is wider than most people expect, too. It is not just the people on your floor or at your employer. It is people doing your job across the industry — your occupation or job title generally, wherever it is performed.

That distinction matters more than it sounds. It means something being routine at your workplace does not automatically sink your claim. In one case, a department store worker was pressured to do something improper with customers' credit card information. Everyone on his sales floor was asked to do the same thing — which, on a workplace-only comparison, would have been the end of it. But he had worked the same job at two other department stores where he had never been asked, and where doing it would have meant serious trouble. That is the comparison the law is actually interested in.

That standard is what has historically sunk sympathetic claims — the carrier's answer is always that is the job, and it often worked. Two exceptions have since taken that answer away from a large share of workers.

This is a standard we have argued at the highest level in the state. In November 2025, the New York Court of Appeals took up a group of cases brought by essential workers seeking compensation for the mental toll of working through the COVID-19 pandemic — including Matter of Anderson v. City of Yonkers. Geoffrey Schotter argued those cases for the workers before New York's highest court. The Court reinstated the Workers' Compensation Board's denials — a hard outcome for those workers, and one that arrived on a standard the Legislature had already moved to narrow.

Because that is the real story here: the courtroom is not where this changed. The Legislature is. Before those cases were decided, New York had already passed a statute covering the psychological conditions that are most commonly claimed and most disabling — and that statute, not any decision, is what moved the line for workers. It is why, for most people reading this, your diagnosis now matters more than the argument the Court was weighing, and why the two exceptions below are the part of this article worth your time.

We have written about the Anderson case and what it involved and about the argument before the Court of Appeals.

Which brings us to the part that matters most.

Two Exceptions Change Everything

New York has carved two groups of workers out of that higher standard. If you fall into one of them, your claim is in a completely different position.

Most people have heard that exceptions exist. What they usually do not know is whether one of them covers their situation — and that is the question worth a few minutes here, particularly if the standard above sounded like it ruled you out.

1. Emergency first responders

Since 2017, the law has exempted designated emergency first responders — police officers, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics, emergency dispatchers, and others certified to provide emergency medical care — from the "similarly situated worker" test, where the claim is based on extraordinary stress incurred in a work-related emergency.

This exemption applies regardless of diagnosis. That makes it the single strongest qualifier in this entire area of law. A first responder whose mental health condition came out of an emergency on the job does not have to win the argument that sinks most other claims.

The word emergency is doing real work there, though. The exemption is tied to what happened in a work-related emergency — not to the job in general. Stress that came out of the ordinary day-to-day culture of the firehouse or the precinct, rather than out of an emergency, may not fall within it.

2. Three specific diagnoses

A 2025 amendment extended similar relief to every covered employee in New York — not just first responders — but only for three diagnoses:

• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Acute stress disorder (essentially early-stage PTSD)
• Major depressive disorder

If a provider has diagnosed you with one of those three, the Board may not deny your claim on the ground that your stress was not greater than what usually occurs in a normal work environment. The argument that defeats most mental stress claims is taken off the table.

There are two important limits. The diagnosis has to be supported by medical evidence meeting the criteria in the DSM-5 — the standard diagnostic manual. And you still have to show the condition arose out of extraordinary work-related stress tied to a distinct work event or events. The new law removes one obstacle. It does not remove all of them.

That phrase — extraordinary work-related stress — stops a lot of people cold, so it is worth saying plainly what it is not. It does not mean your experience has to be dramatic, or extreme, or worse than someone else's. "Extraordinary" is a term of art here, and it long predates this statute: it is close to the language courts have used for generations to describe what makes something an accident in the first place, as opposed to a routine feature of the job. Read it as not ordinary for your work, not as exceptionally terrible.

Your Diagnosis Is the Biggest Single Factor

That list of three is short on purpose, and what is missing from it decides an enormous number of cases.

Adjustment disorder and anxiety are not on the list. They are real conditions, they are frequently what a treating provider writes down, and they leave you facing the full higher burden — you must still prove your stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers in a normal work environment.

This is the piece almost no one knows before they call. Two workers can describe the identical experience at work, be equally impaired by it, and end up in completely different legal positions because one was diagnosed with PTSD and the other with an adjustment disorder.

There is a related point that surprises people, and it is worth knowing before you assume your situation is the weak kind. Major depressive disorder is on that list of three, and unlike PTSD it carries no trauma requirement. The DSM criteria for PTSD build the cause into the diagnosis — exposure to death or serious injury, or the threat of it. Major depression does not work that way. So a condition that came from sustained pressure over months or years, with no single catastrophic event, is not automatically the harder claim. Depending on the diagnosis, it can be the more straightforward one.

A diagnosis has to be an honest clinical judgment from a provider who has actually evaluated you. If you have not been evaluated at all, or if you were diagnosed early and your condition has developed since, getting properly evaluated by a mental health professional is the most important thing you can do — for your health first, and for any claim second.

If you have not seen anyone yet, that is not a reason to stay away. It is a reason to start there.

What Happened Matters More Than How Bad You Feel

Because the DSM-5 controls, the facts of what happened at work do a lot of work in these claims — particularly for PTSD.

The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD require exposure to death or serious bodily injury, or the threat of it — experienced directly, witnessed, or in certain circumstances learned about. That is a specific factual requirement, not a measure of how distressed someone is.

Consider a real pattern: a subway car cleaner was subjected to racial slurs and hostility at work over a period of months and was diagnosed with both PTSD and an adjustment disorder. The Board found the PTSD diagnosis did not meet the DSM-5 trauma criterion — nothing in what happened involved death or serious bodily injury or a threat of it — and the adjustment disorder claim failed the "normal work environment" test. The treatment he genuinely needed was not in dispute. The claim still failed on both tracks.

That case is worth sitting with, because it shows how these claims are actually lost: not because no one believed the worker, but because the facts and the diagnosis did not line up with the legal categories.

The Defense That Ends Cases Outright

There is one fact pattern that stops a mental stress claim cold, and it is extremely common.

If your condition is the direct consequence of a lawful, good-faith personnel decision, there is no claim. The decisions that count are being terminated, demoted, transferred, disciplined, or given a poor performance evaluation. When an employer makes one of those decisions in good faith and lawfully, the resulting emotional harm is not compensable — no matter how devastating it was.

That list is a limit, and the limit is useful to you. The defense reaches those five things. If what happened to you falls outside them, there is an argument that it does not apply at all.

The other two words doing the work are lawful and good faith — and they are two separate requirements, not one phrase.

A decision has to clear both. Firing someone in retaliation for filing a comp claim is not lawful, and New York has a specific statute protecting against it. Neither is firing someone because of their race, national origin, or religion. None of those are lawful personnel decisions in the first place, so the defense never gets off the ground.

But here is the part that gets missed: you do not have to prove anything illegal happened. Good faith is its own requirement. If you can show the personnel action was taken in bad faith, the defense fails even where no statute was violated. You do not have to win a discrimination case in order to get past this in your comp claim.

Understand what it does cost you, though. If you were terminated and your condition is a direct consequence of that termination, you now carry an additional burden: showing the termination was either not lawful or not taken in good faith. That is a real argument to have to win on top of everything else.

One thing helps that argument considerably, though it is not required. If a wrongful-termination claim is separately being pursued — through the EEOC, the New York State Division of Human Rights, or ultimately in court — that puts the Workers' Compensation Board on notice that you are seriously alleging an unlawful or bad-faith termination, rather than simply being aggrieved at your employer, which most of us are at some point. A parallel claim signals the difference. It is a credibility point, not a prerequisite.

There is also a second way around the defense, and it turns on the words direct consequence. The defense only applies where the personnel decision is what caused the condition. Suppose you spent two years in a hostile work environment and were then laid off for entirely legitimate reasons — a downsizing that had nothing to do with you personally. If your providers tie the depression to the years of hostility while you were still working, and not to the layoff, then the condition was not a direct consequence of the personnel decision. The layoff was lawful, and it still does not end the claim.

The 30-Day Clock Almost Nobody Knows About

This is the most common way a real mental stress case is lost before it starts, and it has nothing to do with the law above.

A mental stress claim is treated as an accident. Accidents in New York carry a 30-day notice requirement: you must tell your employer, within 30 days, that you had a work-related accident. That is a separate obligation from filing the claim itself — you have two years to file with the Board, and only 30 days to give notice.

Here is where it goes wrong. People stop working because the job has made them ill, and they do tell their employer something — they mention a mental health diagnosis, or they apply for FMLA, or they request a leave. What they do not do is say, in so many words, that it is because of stress caused by their workplace. That specific statement is the notice. Without it, the employer was told about an illness, not about a work accident.

Thirty Days From When?

That is the harder question, and it is where these claims part company with a broken ankle. With most accidents the date is obvious. With mental stress it usually is not a single day at all — it is months or years of being subjected to something. So the date of accident has to be worked out, and it tends to work much the way it does in an occupational disease claim.

A few common patterns:

• A single, identifiable event. A first responder goes into a burning building and sees what is inside. The date of accident is that day and the clock runs from it. This is the clearest case, and the rarest.
• You stopped working because of the condition. This is the most common strong pattern. The day your leave began can serve as the date of accident — which means you have 30 days from the day you stopped working to tell your employer it was work-related.
• You are still working. Then there is no leave date to use. The date falls back to something like when you were first diagnosed, or first told by a doctor or psychologist that the condition is related to your job. If that date is more than 30 days before you gave notice, you have a problem you will have to argue your way out of.

The Board has real discretion here, and it does not automatically run the clock from the earliest possible moment. Someone may have been seeing a therapist for years before any of it had anything to do with work. The reasoning that tends to prevail is straightforward: you are not going to be diagnosed with work-related mental stress until you start telling your providers about work. Treatment you were already receiving, for reasons unconnected to your job, is not usually what starts the clock — and that ordinarily lines up with reality, because the trouble at work is generally what prompts someone to raise it in the first place.

"Medical Leave" Does Not Mean a Formal Leave Program

This trips up more people than it should. Nothing requires your employer to have a leave program, and nothing requires you to qualify for one.

What matters is that you stopped working because of the condition — particularly if a doctor took you out of work. Whether that took the shape of applying for and being approved for an official leave, or simply stopping on your provider's advice, does not make much legal difference. What is different is being fired, or stopping work for reasons unrelated to the condition. Those are not the same thing at all, and they are the situations that raise other problems.

On FMLA specifically: an FMLA form is not automatically notice. But if the form itself says clearly that the stress was caused by your job, that counts.

Late notice is not always fatal — sometimes more than 30 days have passed and the notice was still given adequately. But it is a fight you would rather not have, and it is entirely avoidable.

The Single Most Useful Thing You Can Do

If you are still working and thinking about going out, the most valuable move is not anywhere on this page. It is a phone call to an attorney, before you do anything else.

Almost everything that decides a mental stress case gets decided before anyone talks to a lawyer — when you stop working, what you tell your employer and when, who is treating you and what ends up in their notes. And some of the steps that look obviously helpful can quietly work against you, depending on facts specific to your situation. There is no room in an article to cover which is which for you, and reading one is not a substitute for having someone walk through your own circumstances.

The exception is timing. If you have already stopped working and you are anywhere near the 30-day mark, that clock is already running. Do not let it run out waiting to reach someone.

Otherwise, the ideal version of this goes: you decide you are ready to go out, and you call before you go — not after.

Contact Schotter Millican, LLP at (718) 770-3708 for a free case review. Our services are available in English, Spanish, and Polish.

Winning and Recovering Are Not the Same Thing

This is the part that other articles leave out, and it is the reason not every viable claim is worth filing.

Workers' comp pays exactly two things: partial wage replacement — up to two-thirds of your average weekly wage — and coverage of causally related medical treatment. That is the whole list. A mental stress claim can be established and still produce almost no wage replacement, because there was never a period where the condition kept you out of work. You would have a won case and very little money.

So if the practical goal is only getting your therapy and medication paid for, workers' comp is often not the better route — and the reason is more specific than most people expect. Comp medical coverage is worse than private insurance for this. With a private plan you may owe a copay or a deductible, but you generally get the treatment. With workers' comp, you can end up back in front of a judge arguing over additional therapy sessions, or over any number of other treatments, each time. Coverage on paper is not the same as care without a fight.

There is a second cost that does not show up in the arithmetic. Pursuing a comp claim generally means moving your care toward a narrow pool of providers who work inside the comp system — people whose involvement is tied to the case, not only to you. A lot of workers do not want to leave a therapist they have been seeing for two years, and that is a real thing to ask of someone whose condition is the reason they are in treatment at all.

The reverse problem exists too, and it is worth knowing about in advance. Some providers who do not accept workers' comp will affirmatively write in their notes that a condition is not work-related — not because they evaluated that question, but because saying otherwise complicates their billing. One line like that in your chart is difficult to undo later.

None of this is an argument against filing. It is an argument for being honest with yourself about the trade. If there is real money at stake, it can be well worth it. If there is not, you can end up more worn down than when you started, for a result your health plan could have reached sooner.

When it is clearly worth pursuing is the flip side, and it is a short list:

• You are going to be out of work for an extended period
• You will have a permanent disability as a result — or a long-term one the carrier is likely to treat as permanent
• You cannot go back to the job that caused this, and the next job pays less than the old one, which is what reduced-earnings benefits are for

Which side of that line you fall on turns on how comp benefits are calculated in your particular situation — and it is genuinely not obvious from the outside. That is a five-minute conversation, not a research project.

What a Strong Claim Usually Looks Like

Put together, here is roughly what an attorney is checking when someone calls about work stress:

1. Are you an emergency first responder, and did this come out of an emergency at work? If yes, you are in the strongest position the law offers, whatever the diagnosis.
2. What has a provider diagnosed you with? PTSD, acute stress disorder, or major depressive disorder puts you in a materially different position than adjustment disorder or anxiety. "Not diagnosed yet" is not a no — it means the first step is an evaluation.
3. What actually happened? For a PTSD claim specifically, a distinct event or events involving death, serious injury, violence, or the threat of it is what the diagnostic criteria are built around. Diffuse long-term pressure is harder to fit into that diagnosis — but not necessarily into a major depression claim, which carries no such requirement.
4. Is a personnel decision the real cause? If the condition traces directly to a lawful termination, demotion, transfer, discipline, or evaluation, that is a serious obstacle — though not automatically the end of it, if the decision was made in bad faith or was not the actual cause.
5. When and why did you stop working? The strongest version: you stopped because of the condition — a formal leave or simply your doctor taking you out, either one — you gave notice within 30 days of stopping, and you were not terminated. That combination establishes the disability and the wage loss while the notice window is still open. Still working full duty means there may be little to recover; quit or fired raises the personnel-decision question.
6. Did you tell your employer it was work-related — and when? Not "I have a diagnosis," not an FMLA form. That the stress was caused by your job, within 30 days.
7. Is there wage replacement at stake, or is this only about treatment? If another insurance plan can cover the treatment, that is usually the better path.

Almost nobody can answer all seven, and you are not expected to. Sorting out which of them actually applies to you is what the call is for — or you can work through them on your own first with our free work stress assessment.

Notice what is not on that list: how severe your symptoms are. That is not because it does not matter — it matters enormously to you and to your treatment. It is because it is not what decides the legal question.

Contact Schotter Millican, LLP at (718) 770-3708 for a free case review.

Where These Cases Are Actually Fought Now

One consequence of the recent changes is worth understanding if you are heading into a claim.

Because carriers can no longer run the "that is just a normal work environment" argument against a PTSD, acute stress disorder, or major depressive disorder claim, the fight has moved to medical ground. The contested question in these cases is increasingly whether the diagnosis genuinely satisfies DSM-5 criteria — whether the qualifying trauma occurred, whether the provider's evaluation supports the diagnosis given, whether a consultant hired by the carrier reaches a different conclusion.

Practically, that means the quality and specificity of your medical evidence is now the case. Being under consistent care with a provider who documents thoroughly matters more than it used to. If you want to understand what building that record involves, we have written about how to prove mental stress in a comp claim and what compensation for work-related mental stress can cover.

Key Takeaways

• A pure mental stress claim is characterized by a mental mechanism (no physical impact) and a mental diagnosis — if either one is physical, the ordinary comp rules apply instead of these
• The default standard is hard: your stress must have been greater than that of similarly situated workers in a normal work environment — measured on a scale from normal to abnormal, not from bad to worse, and compared against your occupation across the industry, not just your own workplace
• Emergency first responders whose stress came from a work emergency are exempt from that standard regardless of diagnosis — the strongest position in this area of law
• Since 2025, PTSD, acute stress disorder, and major depressive disorder are also relieved of that standard for all employees — but adjustment disorder and anxiety are not. Major depression carries no trauma requirement, so sustained pressure with no single catastrophic event is not automatically the weaker claim
• A condition caused by a lawful, good-faith personnel decision is not compensable — but the defense reaches only termination, demotion, transfer, discipline, and evaluation, "good faith" is a separate requirement from "lawful," and a decision that was not the direct cause of the condition does not trigger it
• You have 30 days to tell your employer the stress was caused by your job — and two years to file. Mentioning a diagnosis or applying for FMLA is not the same thing, and this is how real cases get lost
• Thirty days from when is the harder question — usually from the day you stopped working, or, if you are still working, from when you were first told the condition is work-related
• "Medical leave" does not require a formal employer program — stopping work because of the condition, especially on a doctor's advice, is what matters. Being fired is a different situation
• Comp pays only two-thirds of your average weekly wage and causally related medical. If the goal is only treatment, private insurance is usually better — comp coverage means fighting for authorization
• If you have not been evaluated yet, start there — for your health first
• Call before you act, not after. Most of what decides these cases is decided before anyone speaks to a lawyer

Not sure whether what happened to you is a case? That is exactly the question worth asking someone who handles these claims.

Workers’ compensation is what we do. At Schotter Millican, LLP, we represent injured workers across New York City, and we have never represented an insurance company or carrier.

Call (718) 770-3708 for a free case review. No fee unless we win.

Hablamos español — llame al (718) 770-3708.
Mówimy po polsku — zadzwoń (718) 770-3708.