and i want you to think about two things first as i give my argument first of all i am suggesting to you that the issue before you is a question of law not a question of facts facts in this case are not disputed at all what is disputed is the application of the facts to the law to come to a proper conclusion so there is no the claimant has no credibility the claimant is a psychologically damaged person and so of course he has no credibility that's a matter of law the law says that no you know that's what his psychiatrist says question my question was dr from everything you've heard today i'm coming to a conclusion that you would agree that the anger that mr boyer was experiencing was causally related to the original accident anger he's feeling well to begin with it's genuine anger he wasn't just pretending to be angry that's my question answer i sensed it was genuine there's no question that their expert found that mr boyer had a psychological process problem that was causally related to the you're talking about dr  yes that's right and what about the direct examination he testified to based on the history of the claimant had provided him the claimant's pension for anger and blame predated his work accident ok we all have preexisting psychological conditions but before that he was a man who was functioning quite normally in the workforce there were no problems he wasn't getting arrested he wasn't beating up his wife he was maintaining work i mean there is absolutely no symptomatology before that there's no treatment before that the man may have had a predisposition to react that way there doctor the doctor room that we're talking about said that the anger disabled mr boyer to the effect of the to the point where he could not be employed and that until he would learn to caused by the scenery rice got a propensity towards anger right isn't caused by the injury he gets injured and he gets angry about the injury so you can tell us there's a causal connection between the injury in the and subsequent anger case says a teacher with long standing psychological problems was awarded a disability benefits because it was found that the accident had either caused or exacerbated his mental disorders of well it's just it contrary to the testimony of the expert beside chris said it's causally related how can we go beyond that be insurance company hired a psychiatrist he said that the preexisting condition was exacerbated aggravated to the point where this man developed a depressive disorder of such magnitude that he couldn't work diagnosis there's not a formal diagnosis for and they went on to say that this does not arise to a compensable injury under the act so what are we talking about here we're talking about not seeing the forest for the trees we're using the wrong words in addressing the wrong questions what is the forest the the leap that what needs to be looked at is that this man developed a psychological is what a depressive disorder he was diagnosed with having a depressive disorder he was nuts the there was a diagnosis that he was mentally ill and the mental illness resulted in his anger and so it's not a question of what was he angry at it's a question of why was he mentally disturbed why did he have mental illness had mental illness as a result of the accident well i'm just here doctor says self just in that we're using the same terminology here you're saying that the commission referred to the  work and their dr tied it up that this is the result of the accident i didn't bring in my own witness because i thought their witness said it perfectly i asked their witness are you sure he's not upset because his mother was mean to him what he was little oh no he answered was they could swim this well in the commission didn't pull this anger business out of thin air it was around that referred to it in those terms so you're saying somewhere within right ask me any the respect of the respondents attorney very properly and skillfully redirected the issue and confuse the issue because when we're talking about the anger we're talking about a symptom and when we talk about what the anger is directed at we're getting far afield it doesn't matter what the anger is directed at it matters what caused the anger jaeger was caused by the mental illness which was caused by the accident and so the commission focuses they in their last seven says that this is not compensable because mr boyer was a ray of the whole system and so therefore the system is what caused his disability and not the accident that's n very clear he's unequivocal with no room for difference of opinion that grim supports his case with your response i would disagree with that there there is no treating psychologist or psychiatrist in this case in which objective symptoms here to correlate with his subjective complaints i think he needs to i think he's either milling green or he needs to see a psychiatrist at that point he was seen by psychologist d i don't believe he did because he said that he has he definitely has a major he's an he's an angry man he may have said i'm cross that the anger is causally related but he clarified that to say that the petitioner picks and  psychologist reviewed there's a lot of issues with regard to credibility on this case it goes to dish issue of my lingering the petitioner here clearly doctor shop with regard to his physical injury until the seventh doctor he saw agreed with what he was saying he has an answer to he says no you're right he's only claiming that he is he is the sole issue before you is whether or not he is disabled because of his mental condition  bring up these issues of credibility though because i believe if you go to the issue of whether or not he's willing green as dr graham said his fair physical therapist noted in consistency with his pain complaints have to fifteen minutes  several doctors dr could corin dr michelob indicated that his examination was out of proportion with his m r i with his objective complaints he had a inconsistent  work is his anger is self directed he picks and chooses what he's angry at his ingrid the whole system his prior counsel not not at the present counsel apparently had him come to some appointment where he missed his son's wedding doctor he's the only psychologist in this case and dr graham pointed out that it clearly did create this the accident date he has a victim mentality mentality he believes that his parents were wronged by the doctors that they treated with that that led to their early demise if he has anxious against the medical community at large is that this is not a this is not a psychological diagnosis anger is not a psychological diagnosis all the cases that petitioners counsel points to support his case is i was somebody has treated with a psychiatrist as a psychologist there's ample evidence to make a diagnosis in those case they find a causal connection between that in the workplace accident in here there's no treatment there's no treatment by a psychologist by a psychiatrist there's no diagnosis of that this case boils down to some cross examination questions with regard to anger with regard to respondents i am me which essentially was done to see whether or not he was in fact willing green as dr lambie indicated was a strong possibility and the record shows that he was he was willing very he went through seven different doctors every single one of them said you know essentially there's nothing wrong with you the m r i is fine i don't think that petitioner want to accept what his doctors were telling him just the last point i want to make is to find this merit to be compensable that anger is a compensable matter would open the floodgates for claims that the workers compensation commission i just can't imagine bat the petitioner's has met his burden to show that he has a psychological injury there a somebody it could be physical pain it could be mental pain anger absolutely is a legitimate cause of disability it's a question of degree work backwards and say what is the evidence in terms of a diagnosis of depressive order and an opinion as to causation and has that been clearly established here put the timing aside and just simply concentrate on those two well the answer is yes dr graham's testimony is crystal clear that this man has a depressive disorder that resulted in anger have before the actions of post merely a manifestation of what he had before and here he definitely had something new in the sense that he previously had a propensity for egor but he was fine he was working every day he was happily married he engaged in hobbies he was a normal man after that he was disabled and so his propensity for a girl was aggravated t point where he was completely unable to work according to their psychologist dr grim says that the egg or disabled the man totally that comes