Sherman filed a timely petition for review before the Commission. The Commission adopted in full the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by the administrative law judge. Sherman argues that the Commission erred in its finding that her hours and duties were not extraordinary or unusual because she did not present evidence that the responsibilities caused her mental injury pursuant to Section 287.120.8. She claims the finding was against the weight of the evidence presented. We find this argument unpersuasive.
Work stress is measured objectively and by actual events.
Yet, without presenting evidence of similarly situated employees, Sherman is unable to meet the statutory burden set forth in Section 287.120.8. Next, Sherman claims that she presented overwhelming competent evidence that the work related factors were substantial factors causing her mental injury and thus, the Commission's finding was erroneous. We find the Commission did not err in its finding. When there are conflicting opinions of medical experts, the fact finding body determines whose opinion is the most credible. The Commission's choice is binding on this Court when there are permissive inferences which may be drawn from conflicting evidence.