Opinion ID: 1127365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wharton's stress injury was solely due to the suspension

Text: Wharton first contends that the Board erred in its Decision because it did not consider all of Wharton's documentary evidence. [1] We interpret this contention to mean that the Board erred in finding that Wharton suffered a stress injury on February 11, 1989, as a result of his suspension and probation for misconduct. Finding of Fact No. 7. In support of its finding, the Board explained as follows: We have found that [Wharton's] stress injury on February 11, 1989, resulted from his suspension and probation for misconduct. Although the work conditions as described by [Wharton] may have existed to some extent prior to his suspension and probation, [Wharton] was never disabled from stress until after his suspension. The record shows that [Wharton] was never disabled from stress until after his suspension. The record shows that [Wharton] underwent psychotherapy with Dr. Rhodes on January 13, 1989, the day after he was suspended, for a stress reaction. When [Wharton] returned to work on February 11, 1989, the first day of his probation period, he developed stress-related stomach pains and could not finish his shift. In this report dated July 20, 1990, Dr. Rhodes stated that [Wharton] suffered increased physical symptoms and stress when unrealistic expectations were placed on him in terms of a suspension and ... probation[.] [2] These facts support our finding that [Wharton's] stress injury on February 11, 1989, was precipitated by Employer's disciplinary actions. Accordingly, and pursuant to our review of the record, we hold that the Board did not err in finding that Wharton's stress injury arose as a result of his suspension for misconduct.