Opinion ID: 1159900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Preliminary Link

Text: We conclude that this case should be analyzed in the same way as any other claim for workers' compensation benefits. We are not alone in treating a claim for mental injury caused by gradual mental stress in the same manner as any other workers' compensation disability claim. See Royal State National Insurance Co. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Appeal Board, 53 Hawaii 32, 487 P.2d 278 (1971); Yocom v. Pierce, 534 S.W.2d 796 (Ky. 1976); McGarrah v. SAIF, 296 Or. 145, 675 P.2d 159 (1983); Breeden v. Workmen's Compensation Comm'r, 285 S.E.2d 398 (W. Va. 1981). The preliminary link and presumption of compensability is established if there is evidence that the employment contributed to the injury. See Bonner, 680 P.2d at 99. The fact that the employee perceives employment as the source of the injury is not enough to establish the preliminary link unless there is some testimony that the employment affected the employee to help create the disability. As one court put it, there must be some evidence that the employment played an active role in the development of the mental disability and did not merely provide a stage for the event. Albertson's, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. of State of California, 131 Cal. App.3d 308, 182 Cal. Rptr. 304, 309 (1982). Here the evidence establishes a preliminary link between the employment and the disability. While Dr. Ohlson indicated that in his opinion there were a variety of factors more likely to produce stress in Fox, he also stated that [Fox's] relationship with fellow workers and supervisors at Alascom has evidently produced a tremendous amount of stress in her. Dr. Ohlson also stated that Fox's employment with Alascom was a factor causing stress although he though it was not the exclusive nor precipitating factor. In order to establish the preliminary link necessary for the presumption of compensability the claimant need not present substantial evidence that his or her employment was a substantial cause of his disability. Such a showing would be necessary only if the employer had rebutted the presumption of compensability. See Bonner, 680 P.2d at 98. The record contains evidence that the employment was a factor in creating Fox's disability. This is enough to establish the presumption of compensability. On remand, Alascom may rebut the presumption by presenting substantial evidence that Fox's disability was not work-related through (1) affirmative evidence that the disability was not work-related, or (2) elimination of all reasonable possibilities that the injury was work connected. Burgess Construction Co. v. Smallwood (Smallwood III), 698 P.2d 1206, 1211 (Alaska 1985). If Alascom does rebut the presumption then Fox will have to prove all the elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1211. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.