STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)
MONIKA A STOEVEKEN, Applicant
STRATTECK SECURITY CORP, Employer
CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY CO, Insurer
WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECISION
Claim No. 1997018290
An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Worker's Compensation Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.
The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and order in that decision as its own.
ORDER
The findings and order of the administrative law judge are affirmed.
Dated and mailed May 19, 2000
stoevmo.wsd : 175 : 7 ND § 3.41 § 8.24
/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman
/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner
/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The applicant asserts in her petition for commission review that the administrative law judge erred in determining that the applicant failed to adequately support her claim to a work-related depressive disorder which was either caused or aggravated or accelerated by a physical injury. In addition, the applicant contends that the administrative law judge erred in determining that the testimony of the psychotherapist, Mr. Pieper, was not under Wis. Stat. § 102.17(1)(d) and was insufficient to support a medical finding regarding diagnosis, necessity of treatment, causation or nature and extent of disability. The applicant's psychotherapist, Mr. Pieper, possesses a masters of social work degree. However, under Wis. Stat. § 102.17(1)(d)4 only the testimony of a physician, chiropractor, psychologist, dentist or podiatrist licensed to practice where he or she resides or in any state may be received into evidence in compensation proceedings, which does not include a psychotherapist such as Mr. Pieper. The commission does not find that Mr. Pieper was authorized to testify concerning causation of the applicant's psychological problems in regard to the medical issue in this case under Wis. Stat. § 102.17(1)(d)4.
In addition, the medical evidence does not indicate that the applicant's depressive disorder was related to her physical injury in February 1997 when she tripped over a box and landed on a concrete floor. Rather, Dr. Gagrat's notes seem to indicate that the applicant's current psychological problems were caused by her termination from the employer in August 1997, and not related to her work injury. The evidence also indicates that the applicant had a history of prior psychological problems and depression, and that there were a number of nonwork-related stressors in her life at the time of her termination in August 1997. Dr. Grunert, a psychologist who examined the applicant on behalf of the employer, noted in his report dated August 11, 1999 that the applicant has a long documented history of anxiety and depression, and at the time of her original work injury she was taking Paxil which is a powerful anti-depressant medication. Dr. Grunert stated that he could not state to a reasonable degree of probability that the applicant's termination with the employer precipitated, aggravated or accelerated her preexisting psychological condition beyond its normal progression. Dr. Grunert stated that the termination was clearly a stressor which contributed to a significant decompensation on her part but it was also clear that there were multiple other stressors which contributed to her rather fragile psychological status at this time, including her husband's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the financial stressors that were present because of this, as well as a predisposition to developing a major depressive disorder.
In order to establish that she had suffered a non-traumatic mental injury as a result of her termination by the employer the applicant must establish that she was subjected to extraordinary stress in the workplace. The commission agrees with administrative law judge that the applicant did not sustain extraordinary stress sufficient to have caused a mental injury arising out of her employment as the employer had a medical basis to dispute the applicant's veracity, and the applicant eventually restored her employment status under a union grievance procedure. The evidence does not indicate that the applicant's termination, although stressful, was not any more stressful than terminations experienced by similarly situated employes on an every day basis. Based on the medical evidence in the record including the evidence of the applicant's prior history of psychological problems and depression, and given the other nonwork-related stressors in the applicant's life at the time of her termination in August 1997, and based on Dr. Grunert's assessment, the evidence was sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt that the applicant suffered a work- related non-traumatic mental injury as a result of her termination in August 1997. Therefore, the applicant's claim for benefits was appropriately dismissed.
cc: ATTORNEY MICHAEL H GILLICK
MURPHY GILLICK WICHT & PRACHTHAUSER
ATTORNEY ROLAND C CAFARO
LAW OFFICES OF ROLAND C CAFARO
[ Search Decisions ] - [ WC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]