The timeline also mattered. Russo returned to full duty in March 2021 but was removed from work by December 2021 as symptoms intensified. Treating records described nightmares, intrusive memories, hypervigilance, and concentration problems. The psychologist used standard assessments, documented a clinically significant PTSD profile, and concluded Russo could not safely return to policing. The court found that evidence persuasive and cautioned against leaning too heavily on early fitness-for-duty screens, which may not capture delayed-onset symptoms.
There was disagreement on the bench. A concurring opinion urged a fresh look at the long-standing requirement that mental injury claims hinge on “abnormal working conditions,” suggesting the rule is out of step with modern understanding of psychological harm. A partial dissent argued that, while severe, the incident fell within the foreseeable risks of police work and should not qualify as abnormal. The majority held that the combined events were extraordinary enough to meet the standard as a matter of law.
The opinion also looked ahead. A new Pennsylvania statute, effective October 29, 2025, will remove the abnormal‑working‑condition requirement for first responders’ PTSD claims. That change does not apply to Russo’s 2022 filing, but it signals where policy is heading: greater recognition of trauma-related claims in safety‑sensitive roles.
For HR leaders, the takeaways are practical. Treat critical incidents as a continuum, not a one-and-done clearance. An employee can pass an initial screen and still develop significant symptoms months later. Build clear pathways from immediate screening to specialty psychological care, and document how symptoms evolve and affect safety and performance. Keep communication tight among HR, risk management, supervisors, and treating clinicians, especially when shifting employees between administrative leave, sick leave, and potential wage‑loss eligibility. Revisit outside‑employment rules for staff on paid leave to ensure expectations and notifications are clear and consistently enforced.
The bottom line: when a single, violent workplace event occurs – particularly in public safety or other high‑risk environments – expect close scrutiny of how your organization documents, supports, and, when necessary, removes an employee from duty. Courts will look for credible records, specialist input, and a measured, trauma‑informed response. This decision sets a clear tone for how Pennsylvania employers should handle PTSD claims tied to singular on‑duty incidents.