Court Opinion

ID: 9530433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:47.156157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:06.837587
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the majority’s determination that the Commission’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The majority places importance on certain findings of the arbitrator to support its decision. The majority also states that only Dr. Kelly found no causal connection with the events of May 1999. Dr. Kelly’s findings are sufficient in themselves to support the Commission decision. The following findings by the arbitrator and adopted by the Commission support the Commission’s decision: “Dr. Kelly diagnosed mood disorder, dysthymic disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, history of eating disorder, and personality disorder. Dr. Kelly concludes that Rotberg does not have a mental disorder that is causally related to the incident on his job as a teacher in May 1999. He adds that there is no sign of post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Kelly states that treatment records do not indicate persistent inability to function or a new diagnosis or new symptoms not present prior to May 20, 1999. (R. Ex. 2) Ronald Ganellen, PhD, a clinical psychologist, conducted psychological testing on Rotberg. (R. Ex. 3) Dr. Ganellen states that the results of the psychological testing data and his review of the medical records are consistent with longstanding emotional difficulties beginning in childhood and persisting continuously until the present time. Dr. Ganellen adds that the symptoms of emotional distress presented by Rotberg should be considered a continuation of his lifelong persistent anxiety and depression rather than the onset of a new condition. The Arbitrator finds that the proximate cause of Rotberg’s claimed condition of increased anxiety, panic, and depression is the action of the police officers in arresting and incarcerating him, at the behest of Mrs. Sears. There is no testimony or medical evidence indicating that his condition is connected to the act of separating the two fighting students. % ifi The claimed injury in this case was caused by the treatment Rot-berg suffered at the hands of the police. He was not injured by the fighting students, but by the police officers who handcuffed him and took him to the police station and forced him to urinate on the floor. The police officers arrested him following a complaint filed against Rotberg by the mother of Jason Sears; his employer played no part in procuring his arrest. Rotberg argues that, but for the fact that he was at work, separating the two fighting students, the mother would not have filed the complaint. Had Ms. Sears not filed the complaint, the police would not have come. Had the police not come, Rotberg would not have been handcuffed. Had Rotberg not been handcuffed, he would not have suffered an aggravation of his psychological condition. ^ ^ ^ The respondent played no part in causing Roth erg’s arrest, and indeed, could not have prevented the police officers from coming to the school to arrest Rotberg based on Sears’ complaint of battery. And most certainly, the respondent played no part in — and could neither reasonably foresee nor prevent — the police’s mistreatment of Rotberg, which, in the final analysis, is the cause of his present condition.” A review of the record supports the Commission’s decision. The order of the circuit court should be affirmed.