Case Title: Ross v. Sayers Well Servicing Company

Citation: 414 P.2d 679, 76 N.M. 321

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1966-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
414 P.2d 679 (1966) 76 N.M. 321 Sidney C. Ross, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAYERS WELL SERVICING COMPANY, INC., Employer, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 7697. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 23, 1966. *680 Williams, Johnson & Houston, Hobbs, for appellant. L. George Schubert, Hobbs, for appellees. COMPTON, Justice. Claiming total disability by reason of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, the plaintiff has appealed from a judgment dismissing his claim for workmen's compensation. The court found: Appellant relies for a reversal upon the ground that he now suffers from traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis resulting from the accidental injury. He argues from this that the court's finding, though well supported as to his physical recovery, lacks support in the evidence as to a psychological condition resulting in his present disability. The facts are not in dispute and we quote from appellant's statement of facts: The appeal turns on the testimony of medical experts. Dr. Jerome H. Smith, called by the claimant, testified that the claimant's disability was a combination of traumatic neurosis and a compensation neurosis resulting from the injury. We quote the pertinent part of his testimony: Dr. Smith was unable to fix any definite time it would require the claimant to recover from his present disability. *682 Dr. Donald M. Lowery, called by the employer, testified as follows: Obviously, the trial court in making finding No. 2 was of the opinion that there was a conflict in the testimony of the medical experts. We fail to see any conflict in *683 their testimony. Dr. Lowery stated clearly that he was unable to express an opinion as to whether the claimant's disability was due to psychiatric problems arising from his injury because he did not know the claimant's background. This left Dr. Smith's testimony uncontroverted. It is conclusively established that disability resulting from traumatic neurosis is compensable. Gonzales v. Gackle Drilling Company, 70 N.M. 131, 371 P.2d 605. That the disability results from what the doctor chose to describe as "compensation neurosis" or "traumatic neurosis" does not suggest any basic difference between them or in the treatment to be accorded. The fact remains that if a neurosis of the type described by Dr. Smith is present as a result of a work-connected injury, and claimant's earning powers are thereby adversely affected, we perceive of no reason why the same is not compensable under our act. See Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 42.24; Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia, pp. 366.7 to 372; 11 Defense L.J. 189; Hood v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522, 209 S.W.2d 345. Although there is a statement in Montano v. Saavedra, 70 N.M. 332, 373 P.2d 824, as well as in Renfro v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 75 N.M. 235, 403 P.2d 681, generally to the effect that expert opinion evidence is not conclusive on the trier of the fact and may be disregarded even though uncontradicted, the statement in both of those cases was purely dicta, and not applicable under the facts there present. A rule concerning expert testimony generally as stated by us has been recognized in this court ever since Jamison v. Shelton, 35 N.M. 34, 289 P. 593, where, in connection with opinion testimony of an attorney as to the reasonable value of legal services, this court said, "Such expert testimony on the part of plaintiff is purely opinion evidence and not testimony as to facts and is not conclusive, even when uncontradicted." (Emphasis added.) This conforms to the general rule on this type of proof. See 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 569(10), p. 643. Neither do we think the use of similar language in State v. Moore, 42 N.M. 135, 160, 76 P.2d 19, where insanity so as to excuse a homicide was the issue, nor in Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572, or in Teal v. Potash Company of America, 60 N.M. 409, 413, 292 P.2d 99, both being workmen's compensation actions antedating 1959, when § 59-10-13.3(B), N.M.S.A. 1953, was adopted, is controlling here. Section 59-10-13.3(B), supra, applicable here, requires that where causal connection between accident and disability is an issue, "the workman must establish that causal connection as a medical probability by expert medical testimony." By this language, the legislature has directed that medical evidence be presented to establish causal connection when that is an issue, thereby effectively overruling Teal v. Potash Company of America, supra, insofar as it held otherwise. This was recognized in Yates v. Matthews, 71 N.M. 451, 379 P.2d 441, where there was a conflict between the opinion expressed by the experts. In the instant case, where causal connection has been denied and must be established by medical testimony as a medical probability, and where medical opinion based on the facts has been expressed and is uncontradicted, the evidence is conclusive upon the court as trier of the facts. Numerous cases from many jurisdictions so hold, even without a statute such as ours requiring medical testimony. For a few of these see: Wright v. Maryland Boat Line, Inc., (C.A. 1, 1965) 351 F.2d 922, 925; Thompson v. Railway Express Agency (St. Louis, C.A.Mo., 1951) 236 S.W.2d 36; Jones v. Industrial Commission, 81 Ariz. 352, 306 P.2d 277; William Simpson Const. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 74 Cal. App. 239, 240 P. 58; Prendergast v. Retirement Board, etc., 325 Ill. App. 638, 60 N.E.2d 768; Medical Serv. of District of Columbia v. Llewellyn (D.C.App., 1965) 208 A.2d 734; In re Casey's Case (1965) 348 Mass. 572, 204 N.E.2d 710; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blazier (Tex.Civ.App., 1950) 228 S.W.2d 217; Williams v. Bituminous Casualty Corporation (La. App., 1961) 131 So. 2d 844; Hebert v. Your *684 Food Processing and Warehouse Co. (La. App., 1965) 170 So. 2d 765; Hill v. Culligan Soft Water Service Company (Okl., 1963) 386 P.2d 1018. We are forced to the conclusion that finding No. 2 has no support in the evidence and must be set aside. We note, however, that the appellant tendered a finding that the traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis had rendered him totally disabled and prevented his performing any work and that he required further medical and psychiatric treatment, which tender was refused. It follows the judgment must be set aside. The cause is remanded to the lower court with directions to enter judgment for claimant, including an award to claimant of reasonable attorney fees for the services of his attorneys in the district court, and in this court on appeal. It is so ordered. CARMODY, C.J., and CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur. NOBLE, J., dissents. NOBLE, Justice (dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority and, therefore, must dissent. In my view, the majority opinion is erroneous in two important respects that are controlling: first, in holding that compensation neurosis is compensable, and secondly, in the conclusion that the evidence of a causal connection between the claimed present disability and the accident has been established as a medical probability by the undisputed evidence, or that such evidence was binding on the trial court. The premise upon which the majority hold that compensation neurosis is compensable is that there is neither a basic difference between it and "traumatic neurosis," nor in the treatment to be accorded to them. If that premise is erroneous then the result reached by the majority is erroneous. In my view, the majority premise is neither borne out by the weight of the decided cases, the medical texts, nor by the testimony of the medical experts in this case. We are concerned in this case with "compensation neurosis" or "anxiety neurosis" or "desire neurosis" as it is frequently called, as distinguished from "traumatic neurosis or "traumatic hysteria." Professor Larson, in 1 Workmen's Compensation Law, § 42.24, characterizes "compensation neurosis" by saying that: "The most controversial mental-injury question is that of the compensability of `compensation neurosis.'" Since the majority hold that compensation neurosis is compensable because they perceive no basic difference between it and traumatic neurosis which we have held to be compensable, we must examine the two types of neurasthenia and their differences both in origin and in treatment. "Traumatic neurosis" or "traumatic hysteria," as distinguished from "anxiety neurosis" arises from or is caused by a mental shock resulting from accident. Maloy, Nervous and Mental Diseases, p. 307; American Smelting & R. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 59 Ariz. 87, 123 P.2d 163. The traumatic hysteria is perhaps the most common of the "functional" nervous diseases met with after injury. Traumatic neurosis patients exhibit a fear of permanent disability, Maloy, Nervous and Mental Diseases, p. 313, or, as described by Dr. Smith in this case, it is a neurosis that results from the workman who receives an injury being fearful that if he goes back to the same work he will receive another such injury. We have said that traumatic neurosis is compensable, Gonzales v. Gackle Drilling Co., 70 N.M. 131, 371 P.2d 605, but even as to traumatic neurosis the Washington Supreme Court in Mickelson v. Fischer, 81 Wash. 423, 142 P. 1160, said: "An allowance of damages in cases of traumatic neurasthenia touches the border of speculation at best * * *." Compensation neurosis, on the contrary, is not directly produced by either physical injury or mental shock. 44 Mich.L.Rev. 717, and is not a functional disability caused by injury except on the basis of the "but for" *685 reasoning as in the sense illustrated by the old cliche: "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost; for want of a rider, the battle was lost, etc." Thus, as was said in 11 Defense L. Journal 203, by Warren L. Hanna (referee of California Industrial Accident Comm.; author of a two-volume text, "The Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen's Compensation"; editor of "The Workmen's Compensation Laws of California"): See, also, 3 Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia, § 20.2. Thus, the injury is merely a condition precedent, or a starting point, rather than a cause. The relationship between the neurosis and the injury is chronological rather than causal. It is merely "a convenient peg upon which one hangs a hat." The term "sinistrosis" is often used to describe the obsession by which a workmen's compensation claimant is imbued with the idea that every accident constitutes an injury for which the fullest indemnity must be claimed and obtained. These individuals having "compensation neurosis" or "anxiety neurosis" are said to be so preoccupied with their imaginary ills that they become subjects of an obsession which is itself a disease. This, Keschner (M.D., L.L.B., Clinical Professor of Neurology, Columbia University) 44 Mich.L.Rev. 715-16, says must not be confused with traumatic neurasthenia or traumatic neurosis. Dr. Smith was asked: "Traumatic neurosis then and compensation neurosis are they interchangeable?" to which he answered: In the case of compensation neurosis, the injury has merely switched the preoccupation of the personal problems of such person to a different focal point. Such a neurosis has been described as an escape mechanism, developed in many cases as a defense against unpleasant work, an intolerable family life, or other personal problems. See 3 Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia, § 20.2; 30 Virginia L.Rev. 87; 2 Gray, Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine (3d Ed.) 1095. Warren L. Hanna compared a person with compensation neurosis to a child who develops a stomach-ache to avoid going to school; an inadequate person realizing his deficiencies, rebelling against the exigencies of earning a living. It is a situation where any injury offers an excuse for a paid vacation. The claimant in this case feared that his divorced wife would reclaim their children from his custody. Dr. Smith, testifying in this case, defined "compensation neurosis" as "an unconscious motivation because of all these insurance settlements and the trauma of our time. There is unconscious motivation for monetary awards for an injury." As it is often expressed, the claimant suffers from compensationitis and is subject to an effective cure by application of a "greenback poultice." The treatment for traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis is entirely different. In most cases, the treatment for traumatic neurosis is to retrain the workman for a different type of work so that he will not be subject to the hazards which caused his injury. The treatment for "compensation neurosis," on the contrary, according to the testimony of Dr. Smith, is settlement of the workman's compensation claim by the payment of money. He said: "Now, true compensation neurosis as soon as they receive a settlement they will be able to go *686 back to work." Dr. Smith further explained the neurosis as: The only case relied upon by the majority or cited by Larson actually allowing compensation for "anxiety" or "compensation neurosis" is Hood v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522, 209 S.W.2d 345, which was decided by a divided court, four to three, with a strong three-judge dissent. The reasoning of the Texas court is not persuasive to me. The basis of the majority Texas opinion appears to be merely that the workman was unable to work, then why should he not be compensated. That court even said that the reasoning in a case involving a judgment in tort for personal injuries was applicable and decisive. The basis of the majority opinion in the Texas case, I think, is illustrated by the later decision of that court in Bailey v. American Gen. Ins. Co., 154 Tex. 430, 279 S.W.2d 315, where compensation was allowed a workman who suffered neurosis as a result of watching a scaffold fall with another workman, even though the claimant was not involved in any accident. In Kowalski v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 116 Conn. 229, 164 A. 653, 86 A.L.R. 957, the neurosis caused by anxiety over pending litigation and uncertainty of continuance of payments was held to be an independent cause and not compensable. I do not push it aside merely because the condition is mental rather than physical, but as I view the matter, compensation neurosis, or, as may psychiatrists and authors term it, "desire neurosis" is clearly an independent cause and not compensable under our statute. I have no quarrel with the theory that compensation neurosis is a disease. However, I think the appeal should be to the legislature to make it compensable as it did certain occupational diseases. I cannot agree with the majority that (1) the testimony of Dr. Lowery must be disregarded, or (2) that the testimony of Dr. Smith is conclusive in establishing the causal connection between the claimed disability and the accident as a medical probability. It is well established that § 59-10-13.3, N.M.S.A. 1953, requires the claimant, as a condition to recovery, to affirmatively establish the causal connection between the accident and the claimed disability as a medical probability. The majority arrive at the conclusion that the required causal connection has been established by the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Smith; that the trial court was under a duty to so find; that such fact is binding on this court; and that on appeal this court will either supply that fact or direct the trial court to so find. This court has no right to make such a determination. Even if it be assumed for the moment, for this argument alone, that Dr. Smith's testimony stands uncontradicted, Montano v. Saavedra, 70 N.M. 332, 373 P.2d 824, is controlling on the question of the opinion testimony of a medical expert as to causal connection between the accident and disability, when it said: See, also, Teal v. Potash Company of America, 60 N.M. 409, 292 P.2d 99; State v. Moore, 42 N.M. 135, 76 P.2d 19; Jamison v. Shelton, 35 N.M. 34, 289 P. 593. The trial court, in refusing claimant's tendered finding of causal connection, determined that issue against the claimant. In my view, a mere reading of Montano v. Saavedra, supra, and Renfro v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 75 N.M. 235, 403 P.2d *687 681, discloses that the rule announced in those decisions to the effect that opinion testimony as such is not conclusive, even when not contradicted, was clearly not dicta in either case. In Saavedra the decision turned on whether a finding by the trial court that causal connection had not been established was supported in view of the medical opinion to the contrary. The majority have clearly recognized and reaffirmed the rule of Jamison v. Shelton, supra, in which this court expressly declared expert opinion to be merely opinion evidence and not conclusive even when uncontradicted. The majority do not contend that the identical Saavedra and Renfro rule was dicta in Jamison. I find no valid distinction between the opinion evidence said not to be conclusive in Jamison and that of Dr. Smith in the instant case. The majority seem to be clearly inconsistent in reaffirming the opinion rule of Jamison and in the same breath establishing a contrary rule here. It is well established that the fact finder is entitled to draw all reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence and that this court on appeal must likewise indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's findings and in support of the judgment, and must disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Jolly, 67 N.M. 101, 352 P.2d 1013; Mountain States Aviation, Inc. v. Montgomery, 70 N.M. 129, 371 P.2d 604; Cochran v. Gordon, 69 N.M. 346, 367 P.2d 526. Likewise, the trier of the facts must determine the credibility of the witness, reconcile inconsistent statements of the witness, and say where the truth lies. Banes Agency v. Chino, 60 N.M. 297, 291 P.2d 328; Zengerle v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. of New York, 63 N.M. 454, 321 P.2d 636; Luna v. Flores, 64 N.M. 312, 328 P.2d 82. It is clear that Dr. Smith, whose medical testimony is wholly relied upon by the majority, subscribes to the "but for" reasoning in reaching a causal connection between the claimant's desire for compensation and an accidental injury. The majority point to his testimony when questioned as to whether the injury caused the compensation neurosis and quote Dr. Smith as saying: What Dr. Smith was saying was that there can be no recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Statute without an antecedent accidental injury, and that in the sense that such an injury is necessary as a prerequisite to recovery, there is a causal connection between the two. In other words, "but for" the antecedent injury, there could of course be no basis for compensation payments. I think that under applicable rules, the trial court could reasonably draw such an inference from the testimony and conclude that even accepting the testimony of Dr. Smith, there had nevertheless not been the requisite proof of causal connection as a matter of law. It is equally well established that the facts found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case rests in an appellate court, and based upon the applicable rules, I think the majority are wrong in determining the facts. This court has no right to determine, contrary to that made by the trial court, that causal connection has been established as a medical probability. The trial court having determined that the claimant failed to carry his burden of establishing the required causal connection, this court is bound thereby and must affirm the judgment appealed from. Dr. Lowery testified that if the claimant was a well-adjusted individual prior to the injury on July 4th, he would question whether this injury "could have precipitated such an episode;" that if claimant was, at the time of the accident, having a considerable emotional difficulty, the accident could possibly have triggered the blackout condition. In answer to a question of "whether *688 it is a reasonable probability from your training and experience that he is now disabled from the trauma or injury," he answered, "I can't say that it is a probability because I don't know what Mr. Ross was like before." Considering the testimony of Dr. Lowery as a whole, together with the expression of medical textwriters on the subject, I think the trial court might well have concluded that the doctor was using the word "I" in the sense of "we" or "a doctor." He had just explained that it was necessary to know the patient's emotional condition prior to the accident to reach a medical conclusion as to the causal connection. The textwriters support that statement of Dr. Lowery. 3 Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia, § 20.18, and the statement, 30 Va.L.Rev. 87 at 90: The trial court might well have drawn a reasonable inference from Dr. Lowery's testimony that it was his opinion that knowledge of the patient's prior condition was necessary to enable a doctor to express an opinion as to causal connection not that Dr. Lowery could not do so but that in his opinion no doctor could express such an opinion without such knowledge of prior conditions. Such an inference only bolsters the court's denial of the tendered finding on causal connection and his rejection of Dr. Smith's opinion respecting such causal connection. The trial court had a right to construe testimony, resolve conflicts, evaluate it and to draw therefrom all reasonable inferences. I know of no rule which permits an appellate court, after determining that a finding lacks support, to itself make the requisite finding or direct the court as to a particular finding to be made, as was done by the majority in directing the trial court to accept the tendered finding that traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis had rendered the claimant totally disabled. I think there is no medical testimony to support such a direction by this court. Dr. Smith, in answer to a question as to what future therapy he proposed, answered: Both, upon the ground that the trial court had a right to conclude that claimant failed to carry his burden of establishing a causal connection between the accident and the claimed disability and that compensation neurosis or desire neurosis is not compensable under New Mexico's Workmen's Compensation Law, I dissent from the majority.