N.Y. Workers' Compensation Board Rejects Claim That 'Mammy' Doll at Work Exacerbated Mental Illness

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board has disallowed a claim by a Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority employee who said exposure to a racially insensitive wooden "Mammy" doll at work exacerbated a preexisting severe mental illness. In an opinion issued last week by Board Members Steven A. Crain, Renee L. Delgado, and Mark D. Higgins, the panel concluded that the evidence did not establish the causal relationship required to award workers' compensation for a psychological injury in this case.

The claimant, a property manager, filed an Employee Claim (C-3) on January 8, 2025, alleging that on January 25, 2023 she suffered "an exacerbation of severe mental illness due to exposure of a racially insensitive wooden item in another staffer's office." At a hearing on March 7, 2025, she testified that she had been out of work following a traumatic event in July 2021—a shooting in which a 3-year-old child was killed—that had contributed to ongoing anxiety. She said that on January 25, 2023 she was informed that a Mammy doll which depicts slavery was in the building's garage, and that when she went to see it she was "overcome with emotions because it was so humiliating," saying she "could not control her emotions and could not think clearly."

The claimant described the garage as an entryway to the building that is usually open and often used by employees entering from parking. On cross-examination she acknowledged that her office was not located in the garage, which she said was used for storage and maintenance lockers. She characterized the presence of the Mammy doll as evidence that her employer "allows discrimination and hatred."

Tamara Van Wey, director of management for the housing authority, testified at the hearing that she was told the claimant had seen a Mammy doll leaning on the garage window on January 25, 2023, but Van Wey said she had not personally seen the item and could not confirm other items on the garage windowsill.

Medical records in the file showed that the claimant sought care the day after the alleged incident. A January 26, 2023 report noted increased anxiety, stress, and depressed mood and that the claimant reported seeing a derogatory remark directed at her at work; Dr. Campana diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood on January 30, 2023, and noted anxious symptoms dating back a year prior to the alleged Mammy-doll exposure. A carrier consultant, Dr. Joseph, later examined the claimant and diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety and severe depression, finding that the work environment "certainly exacerbated" existing mental health issues.

The administrative law judge initially found prima facie medical evidence of an exacerbation of preexisting mental health conditions. The State Insurance Fund (SIF), which opposed the claim, argued that exposure to the wooden Mammy plaque was a level of offense that did not rise to a compensable claim because employees are expected to endure minor workplace stresses, and that the claimant's medical reports and testimony were inconsistent.

The Board agreed with the SIF. Citing precedent, it reiterated that in claims for psychological injury "other than post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, and/or major depressive disorder, there must be evidence to show that 'the stress that caused the injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment.'" The Board also emphasized the claimant's burden to prove causation by competent medical evidence, which must signify "a probability as to the underlying cause" and be supported by a rational basis.

Applying those standards, the Board concluded that the claimant's accounts were inconsistent with contemporaneous medical reports and that key treating records did not mention exposure to a Mammy doll the day after the incident. The Board found that Dr. Campana had not been informed of the alleged exposure and that Dr. Joseph's opinion relied on the claimant's version of events, which the Board found "lacks credibility." While the Board stated that "racist imagery does not belong in the workplace, and exposure to it can be the cause for anxiety," it ruled that the totality of the evidence did not persuasively establish a causal relationship and therefore disallowed the claim.

The decision highlights the evidentiary hurdles claimants face in proving psychological injuries under workers' compensation schemes when preexisting conditions and inconsistent reporting are factors. It also reflects the legal balance the Board seeks between recognizing legitimate work-related psychological harm and requiring objective, persuasive medical and factual proof of causation.