Ryder, a Philadelphia police officer - Case Analysis

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceRyder, a Philadelphia police officer - Case Review

Ryder, a Philadelphia police officer - Case study

 

 

Facts

Ryder, a Philadelphia police officer, was alone in his patrol car when he received a radio call of a "man with a gun." Ryder was the first officer to arrive and was confronted by a suspect brandishing an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle pointed at him. Ryder was able to subdue him and place him into the back of his police cruiser. Backup units arrived approximately 12 minutes after the initial call. The weapon used by the suspect was later found to be fully loaded with the safety off. Subsequently, Ryder began to experience severe anxiety and stress from answering routine police calls, feeling that either he would be killed or have to kill somebody. A physician diagnosed Ryder as having post-traumatic stress disorder.

Issue

The question of law raised by these facts is whether  Ryder would be entitled to benefits under the worker’s compensation laws.

Holding

My decision in this situation would be that Ryder is not entitled to worker’s compensation.

Reasoning

The rationale behind this holding is that his claim is not compensable under the worker’s compensation laws as it fails to meet the standard of proof established thereunder. While courts increasingly accept claims of worker’s compensation for employees claiming that they suffered or suffer from PTSD in the course of their employment, the general rule followed in most states including Pennsylvania is the one established in Goyden v. State of New Jersey (1991) that  for one to recover under a worker’s compensation law, the event or working conditions triggering or which triggered the employee’s mental condition such as PTSD must have been objectively stressful peculiar, and unusual in nature for it to be compensable. According to the court, to be entitled to compensation, the employee must prove that the workplace conditions must be so peculiar that they would be stressful for those who do not have a similar psychological predisposition.  ..................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY