Case Title: Pais v. Industrial Commission

Citation: 108 Ariz. 68, 492 P.2d 1175

Docket Number: 10699-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1972-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
108 Ariz. 68 (1972) 492 P.2d 1175 Dorothy Irene PAIS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Starrett's, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. No. 10699-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. January 14, 1972. Gorey & Ely by Joseph M. Bettini, Phoenix, for petitioner. William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent. Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, by Cecil A. Edwards, Jr., Phoenix, for respondent carrier. CAMERON, Justice. This court granted the petition of Dorothy Irene Pais for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Pais v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz. App. 428, 489 P.2d 275 (1971), which affirmed an award of the Industrial Commission finding temporary disability only. We are called upon to determine whether the testimony of a psychiatrist based solely upon a file review is substantial evidence. *69 The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. Petitioner, Dorothy Irene Pais, a 52 year old seamstress, while within the scope of her employment injured her left hand on 7 October 1967. Petitioner continued to complain of pain and disability and was referred to Dr. R.A. Huger, a psychiatrist, in December of 1967. She was also examined by Dr. John H. Ricker, an orthopedic specialist with a sub-specialty in hands. On 23 February 1968 the Commission issued its findings and award for temporary disability finding that the petitioner had no permanent physical or mental disability resulting from the accident. This award was protested and request for hearing was filed, alleging a continuous psychiatric disability. Prior to this hearing and at the request of the State Compensation Fund, Dr. William McGrath, a psychiatrist, submitted a one-page report entitled "File Review." Dr. McGrath had previously examined the petitioner in 1965. Dr. McGrath's report, dated 25 November 1968, concluded: At the hearing Dr. Ricker testified: Dr. Raymond A. Huger, M.D., a psychiatrist, testified: On cross-examination the Doctor testified: Dr. McGrath testified over objection of the attorney for the petitioner. He stated as follows: And on cross-examination he testified as follows: We have stated this day that a mere file review and comment on the evidence is not substantial evidence on which the Commission may base a conflict of medical testimony, when compared with contrary testimony of attending or examining physicians unless it has been clearly shown that a physical examination would not be of any conceivable benefit. Rutledge v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 61, 492 P.2d 1168 (1972); Condon v. Industrial Commission, 108 Ariz. 65, 492 P.2d 1172 (1972). In the case at bar, we have a situation wherein the expert, Dr. McGrath, is attempting to diagnose the petitioner's present mental and physical condition without physically examining the petitioner, basing his opinion upon an examination some three years previous and a file review. Dr. McGrath not only disagrees with the diagnosis of the examining physicians, one also a psychiatrist, as to petitioner's condition, but as to causation as well. We can think of few cases in the field of medicine wherein an actual physical examination of the patient would be more beneficial than in psychiatric evaluation. Psychiatric evaluation of a patient is concerned not only with the "science" of psychiatry but also the "art" of examination. We hold that Dr. McGrath's testimony was not legally substantial because of the failure to personally examine the claimant and the Industrial Commission could not, under the circumstances of this case, rely upon his testimony for the purpose *71 of finding a conflict in the medical evidence. Anything in the prior cases of Piepkorn v. Industrial Commission, 9 Ariz. App. 532, 454 P.2d 580 (1969) and Vaughn v. Industrial Commission, 13 Ariz. App. 532, 478 P.2d 530 (1971) to the contrary is by this opinion disapproved. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated, 15 Ariz. App. 428, 489 P.2d 275 (1971), and the award of the Industrial Commission is set aside. HAYS, C.J., UDALL, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.