Cases of Note

OVERVIEW: The trial court found that appellant suffered from depression and anxiety before his work injury and that the medical evidence was insufficient to determine that any measurable change had occurred as a result of the injury. It adopted the opinion of one of appellant's treating physicians that appellant had sustained zero impairment as a result of his alleged back and neck injuries. The high court held that the trial court did not err crediting this physician's opinions instead of the medical opinions relied on by appellant, as those opinions were based in part on inaccurate information. Appellant was properly denied benefits for his alleged post-traumatic stress disorder, as his treating psychiatrist's testimony established that appellant was suffering from severe psychiatric problems at the time of his discharge from an outpatient program less than one month before the accident. The trial court found unpersuasive another psychiatrist's opinion that appellant had recovered from his psychiatric problems before the accident, and this finding was amply supported by the record.

OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.