Landmark ruling compels HR to address mental health after firefighter's traumatic workplace events
A Pennsylvania firefighter’s fight for mental health benefits after two traumatic infant emergencies is changing the conversation around workplace PTSD for first responders.
On October 22, 2025, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that could influence how HR professionals and public employers address mental health claims in high-stress jobs. The case involves Brian Ganley, a firefighter for Upper Darby Township, who developed post-traumatic stress disorder after performing unsuccessful CPR on two infants in separate incidents, 16 months apart.
Ganley’s experience highlights the challenges faced by emergency workers and the responsibilities of their employers. After the first incident in November 2018, Ganley continued working but suffered mental health symptoms related to the trauma. In May 2021, after a second infant could not be revived despite his efforts, Ganley’s symptoms intensified, leading him to leave his job. He reported anxiety, depression, anger, PTSD, loss of appetite and sleep, and nightmares.
Ganley sought workers’ compensation benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Judge and the Appeal Board denied his claim. They found that, while tragic, performing CPR – even on infants – was not considered an “abnormal working condition” for a firefighter. The township’s fire chief testified that such events, though rare, are part of a firefighter’s expected duties and training.
The Commonwealth Court, however, reversed these decisions. The court found that the compounded effect of performing CPR on two infants who died within a short time frame was an extraordinary and distressing sequence of events. The court concluded that these circumstances constituted an abnormal working condition, entitling Ganley to workers’ compensation benefits for his psychological injury. The case was remanded for calculation of benefits and further proceedings.
For those in public safety and emergency services, the case underscores the need for policies and support systems that address the mental health impacts of traumatic events in the workplace.
The court’s decision reflects a recognition that, even in high-stress professions, certain experiences can exceed what is normally expected and may warrant additional support and compensation. For HR leaders, the case serves as a reminder to review mental health resources and ensure that employees exposed to traumatic events have access to appropriate support.
Ganley’s case does not involve large companies or financial misconduct, but it addresses a significant issue for the HR industry: the recognition and support of psychological injuries resulting from extraordinary workplace events. As legal standards and workplace expectations continue to evolve, this decision highlights the importance of proactive mental health policies for employees in high-risk roles.
The Ganley decision is a prompt for HR professionals to evaluate how their organizations support workers facing extraordinary challenges, ensuring that mental health is prioritized alongside physical safety in the workplace.
