“It is well settled that a psychological impairment, which is work related, is presumed to be compensable under the Act. Therefore, to receive the benefit of this § 920(a) presumption, the claimant must prove not only that he has a psychological impairment, but that an accident occurred, or working conditions existed, which could have caused the impairment.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “It is well settled that a psychological impairment, which is work related, is presumed to be compensable under the Act. Therefore, to receive the benefit of this § 920(a) presumption, the claimant must prove not only that he has a psychological impairment, but that an accident occurred, or working conditions existed, which could have caused the impairment.” (citation omitted)
- explaining “an unpublished decision is not precedent”
- "[A]n unpublished decision is not precedent for our panel."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I write separately to emphasize that our holding concerns legitimate personnel actions, and not employer conduct that is in any way hostile, vindictive, malicious, mean, insensitive, crude, or abusive.