Opinion ID: 1189901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: as to the issue of whether the board's finding of temporary total disability is supported by substantial evidence

Text: The Board in its Findings and Award of February 18, 1964, found that on July 14, 1960, claimant sustained an accidental injury to his back in the course of his employment which caused temporary total disability that began on July 14, 1960, and has continued to the present date. As to the nature of claimant's injury, the Board found that: Applicant suffered and still suffers from an acute and chronic lumbosacral sprain of the muscles and ligaments of the low back. This condition was caused by the industrial accident in Fairbanks and applicant never recovered from the accident.    A functional overlay was superimposed upon this condition. This was later classified as a conversion hysteria.   The conversion hysteria was caused by the injury or by circumstances arising out of and following the injury. This condition has continued up to the present time. Based in part on the foregoing, the Board concluded to award claimant compensation for temporary total disability in the sum of $70.62 per week beginning July 14, 1960, to the date of this opinion and continuing until applicant is no longer disabled, until he is able to return to full time work, or until his condition is stabilized and the degree of permanent disability can be determined,   . The Board's findings as to claimant's temporary total disability were subsequently affirmed by the superior court. [14] In this appeal appellants assert that the Board erred in regard to its finding of temporary total disability. Our review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. [15] We have concluded that the Board's findings as to claimant's temporary total disability are supported by substantial evidence under this test. The evidence before the Board as to the nature of claimant's disability and its causal relation to the July 14, 1960, injury was conflicting. On review, it is not our province to weigh the evidence or to choose between competing inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence. Judge Holtzoff articulated this well established principle of review in compensation cases in Great American Indem. Co. v. Britton, [16] where, in an appeal under the Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, he wrote: The only questions that the Court may consider are, first, whether the award is contrary to law; and second, whether the administrative findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.    That countervailing evidence may have more probative value would not warrant the court in overruling the findings. So, too, the Court may not set aside the inferences drawn by the Administrator from the evidence that he chose to believe, if such inferences are reasonably possible and have a rational basis.    The Court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the Deputy Commissioner. [17] We have already alluded to Dr. Serena's report of June 22, 1961, in which he concluded that claimant's back condition was organic in nature, disabling, and causally related to the July 14, 1960, injury. Dr. Serena diagnosed claimant's condition as that of a lumbosacral sprain, with herniated disc at lumbo sacral joint  left side. The Board also had before it the July 11, 1961, report of Dr. H. Howard Green, an orthopedic surgeon, in which it was stated: This patient is suffering from an acute lumbosacral sprain which has now become recurrent and chronic.    It has, however, been a year since his original injury and he is still severely disabled despite treatment. He is now convinced that he will never be well unless or until he has an operation. I presume the intended operation would be a lumbosacral fusion and he would probably improve with such a procedure. In addition to the foregoing, there was also introduced into evidence the September 27, 1961, report of Dr. Frank Robinson, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Robinson's report stated in part: Impression: 1. Musculoligamentous strain, lumbar, history. 2. Functional overlay superimposed upon (1). The patient's clinical examination findings reveal rather obvious discrepancies as noted above which would point toward the presence of psychogenic overtone operative in this case. This individual's extended disability is certainly more than one would attribute to lumbar strain. There is a possibility, of course, that he has an underlying intervertebral disc herniation with a superimposed functional overlay. In view of the equivocal clinical picture I feel that it would be advisable to obtain a lumbar myelogram for further diagnostic evaluation. We are of the opinion that the reports of these three physicians, together with claimant's testimony, establishes that there is substantial evidence in the record in support of the Board's finding of an organic injury to claimant caused by the July 14, 1960, accident. [18] Similarly, we are also of the opinion that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that claimant suffers from functional overlay, in the nature of conversion hysteria, caused by the July 14, 1960, accident. In this appeal, appellants concede that conversion hysteria (or traumatic neurosis) is compensable if causally related to the physical injury claimant suffered in July of 1960. [19] Here appellants contend that claimant did not establish the causal relation between his condition of conversion hysteria and the accident of July 14, 1960. Review of the reports of Doctors Robinson, Mulford, Haggland, Fish and Wichman clearly indicates that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of conversion hysteria. [20] We are of the further view, and so hold, that the report of Dr. Robinson, when considered in connection with the testimony of Dr. James Lundquist pertaining to the causal nexus between the physical injury and claimant's condition of conversion hysteria supports the Board's conclusion that claimant's conversion hysteria was caused by the injury or by circumstances arising out of and following the injury.