Brunell v. Wildwood Crest Police Department
New Jersey Supreme Court
822 A.2d 576 (2003)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Diana Brunell (plaintiff) worked as a dispatcher for the Wildwood Crest Police Department (defendant). On June 2, 1995, Brunell dispatched an officer to a vehicle stop where a conflict ensued and the officer was killed. In 1999, Brunell was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a direct result of her involvement in the events leading to the officer’s death. In January 2000, Brunell filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits, which was denied. Samuel Stango (plaintiff) was an officer with the Lower Township Police Department (defendant). On February 18, 1994, Stango and another officer responded to a domestic dispute, and Stango witnessed the immediate aftermath of the other officer’s shooting death. In February 2000, a balloon that Stango was holding for a birthday party popped and triggered a traumatic flashback to the 1994 incident. In April 2000, Stango filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits based on PTSD, which was denied. The cases of Brunell and Stango (the claimants) were consolidated, and the judge of compensation dismissed both for failure to file timely claims. The appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the claimants’ PTSD was a compensable “accident” triggering the two-year statute of limitations at the time of the traumatic event, rather than an occupational disease that would delay the limitations period. The claimants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Long, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.