SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Inova Healty Sys. v. Nha-Uyen Nguyen
No. 0906-24-1
Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided: August 12, 2025

Claimant’s exposure to inappropriate sexual advances by a patient is compensable as a “sudden or unexpected shock or fright.”

Background

Claimant worked as an ultrasound technologist at Inova Loudoun Hospital for over 20 years. On July 1, 2021, while performing a venous Doppler ultrasound on a male patient, the patient made inappropriate sexual advances toward Claimant despite her rejection. As Claimant was adjusting her machine to scan the patient’s other leg, the patient deliberately exposed his genitals to her. Claimant immediately reported the incident to the charge nurse and her supervisor. Clamant sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and insomnia by her primary care physician. She lost time from work for approximately 2 months. Employer argued that Claimant sustained no physical injury and that the patient’s conduct fell within the parameters of Claimant’s job description for treating patients. Thus, the behavior fell short of a compensable sudden or unexpected shock or fright. The Deputy Commissioner disagreed, finding that the behavior was distinguished from ordinary clinical exposure to genitalia for medical purposes because the patient’s behavior was intentional, unsolicited, and unnecessary exposure that occurred after Claimant rebuffed the patient’s advances. Employer appealed, and the Decision was affirmed by the full Commission. The Employer again appealed.

Holding

The Court held that Employer failed to show that this case is distinguishable from prior precedent establishing that psychological injuries do not require physical injuries. The Court further held that the Deputy Commissioner stated that the appropriate objective standard was applied, and the determination of “sudden shock or fright” was a factual determination for the Deputy Commissioner to make. The Court could not state that there was no credible evidence to support the Commission’s Decision and therefore had no basis to overturn it.

Takeaway

Defending “sudden shock or fright” requires establishing that an incident is a predictable part of a claimant’s job duties. Witness statements, video footage, and witness testimony play an important role in defending said claims by establishing that an alleged incident is part of a claimant’s regular job duties.

Any questions regarding this case can be addressed to Jamie DeSisto at 443-641-0558 or jdesisto@tthlaw.com.