Opinion ID: 2277880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Depression

Text: In addition, we find no error in the determination by the ALJ that Poe currently suffers from depression that is secondary to the effects of his 1997 injury. These findings were based upon the conclusions of Dr. Weiss, a professor of psychology at the University of Evansville and a clinical psychologist who examined Poe at the request of the Division of Disability Determination for the purposes of conducting a social security disability evaluation. Dr. Weiss indicated that Poe's depression was a direct result of the injury because there was no evidence of previous depression or previous treatment for depression, and it was following the injury that there was an onset of depression. The failure of Dr. Weiss to assign a specific impairment rating attributable solely to Poe's secondary psychological overlay does not defeat the psychological aspect of the claim. Pursuant to KRS 342.0011(11)(c) a claimant may be found permanently disabled only upon a showing that due to an injury the employee has a permanent disability rating. KRS 342.0011(36) defines permanent disability rating as the permanent impairment rating determined by the latest edition of the AMA Guides times the appropriate factor under KRS 342.730(1)(b). The problem is Chapter 14 of the most applicable edition of the AMA Guides dealing with mental and behavioral disorders deliberately makes no provision for numerical impairment ratings for any type of psychological or psychiatric impairment or disability. Thus, if we accepted the Cabinet's position, it would be impossible for Poe to demonstrate a permanent impairment rating for the psychological aspect of his claim because no provision for it exists in the AMA Guides. Such a result is not only unreasonable, it is contrary to KRS 342.0011(1), which clearly indicates that a psychological change in the human organism comes within the definition of a compensable injury if it is the direct result of a physical injury. Consequently, we must conclude that the Legislature did not intend to require a specific numerical impairment rating for a work-related psychological injury. We agree with the Court of Appeals and Board that so long as a psychological condition produces medical restrictions, is work-related, and is a direct result of the same traumatic event for which an impairment rating has been assigned, an ALJ has the discretion to deem said condition contributory and compensable when making a finding of total disability.