Opinion

Ryan v. Workman's Compensation Appeal Board

  • 550 Pa. 550
  • 707 A.2d 1130
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 26, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Nigro
On the bench
Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
Cited by
44 cases

claimant had executed final receipt for her workers’ compensation benefits but subsequently filed petition seeking to amend original Notice of Compensation Payable to reflect her ongoing mental disability stemming from her original work-related physical injury

How later courts described this case

  • claimant had executed final receipt for her workers’ compensation benefits but subsequently filed petition seeking to amend original Notice of Compensation Payable to reflect her ongoing mental disability stemming from her original work-related physical injury
  • identifying and giving examples of other two types of injuries
  • providing the definition of substantial evidence
  • Examples of mental/physical injuries which are compensable include psychological stress at work causing a heart attack or angina.

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NIGRO, Justice,

concurring.

I concur with the majority’s holding that the Claimant’s injury should have been classified as a mental/mental injury and that she has not met her burden of showing, sufficient for recovery, that those injuries result from abnormal working conditions.

Claimant did not report any psychological problems until almost two years following the automobile accident, and then not until she learned that she was being sued by the other driver. Thus, her condition is properly characterized as a mental disability resulting from a mental stimulus (“mental/ mental”). Claimant’s mental/mental injury is not compensable since she failed to prove the psychological stimulus occurred *564 as a result of abnormal working conditions in the course of her employment.

However, in determining compensability, I believe we must be vigilant in distinguishing those cases which may seem to be mental injuries brought on by mental stimuli (mental/mental) but are actually mental injuries caused by physical trauma. For example, I would categorize as physical/mental a latent psychological disorder, not immediately apparent, which is ultimately triggered by a mental stimulus, but nonetheless has its genesis in an original physical trauma. This mental disability may not surface until some time has passed and claimant inadvertently “revisits” the original physical trauma in her mind. Similarly, I would analyze as physical/mental a physical trauma simultaneously accompanied by psychological injury, which psychological injury may seem to heal but may actually recur when triggered by a mental stimulus associated with the original physical harm.

These delayed emotional reactions should not be mistaken as being unrelated to the physical harm when, in reality, the two are conjoined. Simply because the mental problem is “triggered” by a mental stimulus does not mean that it is not in fact caused by the physical injury. These examples represent classic patterns of emotional harm brought about by physical trauma (“physical/mental”) and reflect the mind’s ability not only to attempt to block a person’s more horrible experiences, but to then flood with vivid memory on the slightest provocation. Both paradigms can produce debilitating psychological harm and are properly characterized as physical/mental injuries.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.