IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 ROSEANNE BIANCO, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 27,887 4 HORROR ONE PRODUCTIONS, 5 AXIUM INTERNATIONAL and 6 AIG/GALLAGHER BASSETT 7 SERVICES INC., 8 Employer-Insurer-Appellees. 9 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 10 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 11 Narciso Garcia, Jr. 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Maestas & Suggett, P.C. 15 Paul Maestas 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellees 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 KENNEDY, Judge. 20 Worker appeals a compensation order denying her benefits for psychological 21 injuries. In our notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that there was sufficient 22 evidence to support a determination that Worker’s psychological injuries were not 232 caused by the work-related accident. Worker has timely res ponded. We have 1 considered her arguments and, fi nding them unpersuasive, we affirm. 2 In our notice, we proposed to affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation 3 Judge (WCJ) on the basis of his finding that the doctors’ testimony was suspect 4 because Worker had not fully disclosed her prior history of psychological problems. 5 Worker has responded that the WCJ made no such finding. The WCJ is required to 6 make only such ultimate findings of fact as are necessary to support its decision. 7 Apodaca v. Payroll Express, Inc. , 116 N.M. 816, 818, 867 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Ct. App. 8 1993). Evidentiary findings to support the ultimate factual finding are not required. 9 Griego v. Bag ‘N Save Food Emporium , 109 N.M. 287, 291, 784 P.2d 1030, 1034 (Ct. 10 App. 1989). 11 Here, the WCJ explained his ultimate findings in his written memorandum 12 opinion. Thereafter, the compensation order including the ultimate findings of fact 13 was filed. The WCJ found as ultimate factthat Worker was not entitled to medical 14 treatment for psychological care as it was not work related. RP 201] That finding is 15 supported by the evidence as explained in the opinion of the WCJ. 16 Worker contends that the doctors ’ testimony regarding causation was 17 uncontradicted. [MIO 3] In fact, their testimony was contradicted by the evidence 18 that Worker had a history of psychological problems, which she had failed to disclose 19to them. We have often stated that a me dical expert’s testimony is only a good as the 1 information that underlies it. See Banks v. IMC Kaliu m Carlsbad Potash Co. , 2003- 2 NMCA-026, ¶ 35, 135 N.M. 421, 77 P.3d 1014; Neiderstadt v. Ancho Rico Consol. 3
Mines , 88 N.M. 48, 51, 536 P.2d 1104, 1107 (Ct. App. 1975). Where a doctor has not 4 been given pertinent information about Worker’s pre-existing medical condition, that 5 doctor’s testimony regarding causation cannot satisfy Worker’s burden to show 6 causation. Contrary to Worker’s a ssertion that her doctors’ testimony was 7 uncontradicted regarding causation, the ev idence established that the testimony was 8 contradicted by Worker’s failure to gi ve those doctors a complete psychological 9 history when she sought treatment. 10 We conclude that the evidence supports the finding that the psychological 11 injury was not work related. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and our notice 12 of proposed disposition, we affirm. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

___________________________________ 15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 16

WE CONCUR : 172 ___________________________ 1 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 2

___________________________ 3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 4