Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Lexapro his pain increased, which caused his blood pressure to rise, and when he resumed taking Lexapro those physical symptoms subsided. Because the Division did not present evidence disputing his testimony, he contends, substantial evidence supported the OAH ruling. [¶ 12] The Division asserts the district court properly held substantial evidence did not support the OAH ruling that Lexapro was prescribed to reduce Mr. Herrera’s pain, numbness and high blood pressure. The Division contends the evidence showed Lexapro was prescribed to treat Mr. Herrera’s agitation, stress, anxiety and depression, that is, mental injuries. Citing § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J), the Division asserts mental injuries are compensable only when the ty and Comp. Div., 2001 WY 45, ¶ 12, 23 P.3d 1138,1141 (Wyo.2001) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence (B) holding clear and convincing evidence established that the claimants attempted suicide was the result of a mental injury suffered subsequent to a compensable injury (C) holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence (D) holding the claimant established by clear and convincing evidence that her depression was caused by her compensable physical injury (E) holding that because a claimant testified that she had no insurance and could not afford treatment her failure to take medication for her symptoms is not a clear and convincing reason for discrediting her symptom testimony
Output (English): holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence