Retirement – Accidental disability – Stress

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner who worked as a special education paraprofessional filed an application to retire for accidental disability, a decision by the State Board of Retirement denying her application should be affirmed because the limited record presented does not establish that the stresses of the petitioner’s job were “uncommon” enough to qualify her for accidental disability retirement under G.L.c. 32, §7.

“Petitioner Donna Pugsley appeals from a decision of the State Board of Retirement (board) denying her application to retire for accidental disability. …

“Ms. Pugsley’s students exhibited a mix of special educational needs and mental health issues. Ms. Pugsley witnessed and dealt with students’ outbursts, harsh comments, and anxious movements, such as fist clenching and fidgeting. She found her job to be stressful on a day-to-day basis. …

“After approximately three years of teaching, i.e., in about 2011, Ms. Pugsley suffered from and was treated for stress-induced cardiomyopathy, also known as Takotsubo syndrome. That condition involves reduced heart function and can lead to death. Medical records described Ms. Pugsley’s symptoms and hospitalization as relating to ‘a stressful personal situation.’ She was able to return to work without limitations. …

“Ten years later, in early 2021, Ms. Pugsley found out that a former student of the school had been charged with the murder of his parents. …

“The record offers substantial support for the theory that Ms. Pugsley’s disability was caused, not by ‘a single work-related event or series of events,’ Blanchette v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 485 (1985), but by a constant or near-constant aspect of her job: namely, the stresses that flowed from the traumas and misbehaviors of Ms. Pugsley’s students. A theory based on such an ‘identifiable [workplace] condition’ may be viable, but only if the condition was ‘not common and necessary to all or a great many occupations.’ … This rule attempts to distinguish the special risks that accidental disability retirement is designed to alleviate from the more routine issues ‘which should more properly be covered by personal health insurance.’ Adams v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 414 Mass. 360, 366 (1993). …

“In Ms. Pugsley’s case, the pivotal question is not whether her professional experience caused her disability; it is whether that experience was ‘uncommon.’ It was Ms. Pugsley’s burden to prove the particular features of her workplace stressors that differentiated them from the pressures prevalent in many other lines of work. … On the limited record presented, Ms. Pugsley has not carried that burden. Her students’ uncooperative tendencies and palpable anxieties do not necessarily appear to have differed in magnitude from the behaviors encountered by professionals in many occupations. … It remains as likely as not that Ms. Pugsley’s job was upsetting and anxiety-producing only in ways shared by many other lines of work.

“It is not clear from Ms. Pugsley’s papers whether she attributes her incapacity in the alternative to ‘a single work-related event,’ Blanchette, 20 Mass. App. Ct. at 485, i.e., to her receipt of the news that a former student had been charged with murder. Regardless, that theory would be unsuccessful. Ms. Pugsley may or may not have adequately presented a single-event-based claim to the board. … There is no record evidence on whether she was performing identifiable duties of her job when she heard the news about the former student. … And no causal connection between Ms. Pugsley’s disability and any specific incident is established by a preponderance of the record evidence, including the medical panelists’ reports. …

“Injurious constant or near-constant workplace conditions make public employees eligible for accidental disability retirement only in cases of ‘uncommon’ hazards. On the record presented, Ms. Pugsley’s case does not satisfy that rule. The board’s decision is therefore affirmed.”

Pugsley v. State Board of Retirement (Lawyers Weekly No. 27-002-26) (7 pages) (Malkiel, Administrative Magistrate) (Division of Administrative Law Appeals) Donna Pugsley, pro se; Matthew Szafranski for the respondent (Docket No. CR-25-0337) (Jan. 2, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.