Court Opinion

ID: 9553337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:07.776164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:50.390944
License: Public Domain

NOBLE, Justice (dissenting). I am unable to agree with the maj.ority and, therefore, must dissent. In my view, the majority opinion is erroneous in two important respects that are controlling: first, in holding that compensation neurosis is compensable, and secondly, in the conclusion that the evidence of a causal connection between the claimed present disability and the accident has been established as a medical probability by the undisputed evidence, or that such evidence was binding on the trial court. The premise upon which the majority hold that compensation neurosis is compensable is that there is neither a basic difference between it and “traumatic neurosis,” nor in the treatment to be accorded to them. If that premise is erroneous then the result reached by the majority is erroneous. In my view, the majority premise is neither borne out by the weight of the decided cases, the medical texts, nor by the testimony of the medical experts in this case. We are concerned in this case with “compensation neurosis” or “anxiety neurosis” or “desire neurosis” as it is frequently called, as distinguished from “traumatic neurosis or “traumatic hysteria.” Professor Larson, in 1 Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 42.24, characterizes “compensation neurosis” by saying that: “The most controversial mental-injury question is that of the com-pensability of ‘compensation neurosis.’ ” Since the majority hold that compensation neurosis is compensable because they perceive no basic difference between it and traumatic neurosis which we have held to be compensable, we must examine the two types of neurasthenia and their differences both in origin and in treatment. “Traumatic neurosis” or “traumatic hysteria,” as distinguished from “anxiety neurosis” arises from or is caused by a mental shock resulting from accident. Maloy, Nervous and Mental Diseases, p. 307; American Smelting & R. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 59 Ariz. 87, 123 P.2d 163. The traumatic hysteria is perhaps the most common of the “functional” nervous diseases met with after injury. Traumatic neurosis patients exhibit a fear of permanent disability, Maloy, Nervous and Mental Diseases, p. 313, or, as described by Dr. Smith in this case, it is a neurosis that results from the workman who receives an injury being fearful that if he goes back to the same work he will receive another such injury. We have said that traumatic neurosis is compensable, Gonzales v. Gackle Drilling Co., 70 N.M. 131, 371 P.2d 605, but even as to traumatic neurosis the Washington Supreme Court in Mickelson v. Fischer, 81 Wash. 423, 142 P. 1160, said: “An allowance of damages in cases of traumatic neurasthenia touches the border of speculation at best * * Compensation neurosis, on the contrary, is not directly produced by either physical injury or mental shock. 44 Mich.L.Rev. 717, and is not a functional disability caused by injury except on the basis of the “but for” reasoning as in the sense illustrated by the old cliche: “For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost; for want of a rider, the battle was lost, etc.” Thus, as was said in 11 Defense L. Journal 203, by Warren L. Hanna (referee of California Industrial Accident Comm.; author of a two-volume text, “The Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen’s Compensation” ; editor of “The Workmen’s Compensation Laws of California”) : “ * * * the person who is looking for an antecedent ‘cause,’ rather than the immediate or proximate cause, can conclude that the cause of losing the war was the want of a nail, and that a neurosis was caused by trauma.” See, also, 3 Lawyers’ Medical Cyclopedia, § 20.2. Thus, the injury is merely a condition precedent, or a starting point, rather than a cause. The relationship between the neurosis and the injury is chronological rather than causal. It is merely “a convenient peg upon which one hangs a hat.” The term “sinistrosis” is often used to describe the obsession by. which a workmen’s compensation claimant is imbued with the idea that every accident constitutes an injury for which the fullest indemnity must be claimed and obtained. These individuals having “compensation neurosis” or “anxiety neurosis” are said to be so preoccupied with their imaginary ills that they become subjects of an obsession which is itself a disease. This, Keschner (M.D., L.L.B., Clinical Professor of Neurology, Columbia University) 44 Mich.L.Rev. 715-16, says must not be confused with traumatic neurasthenia or traumatic neurosis. Dr. Smith was asked: “Traumatic neurosis then and compensation neurosis are they interchangeable ?” — to which he answered: “NO. Traumatic neurosis is a different sort of thing, it is more on the basis of someone who has received — -well in the more severe ones more like a person receiving several injuries over a period of years. They are getting up in years in an occupation in which does have some hazards to it and because of these increasing illnesses I mean increasing injuries, they are fearful on an unconscious level that they will receive more. I think all of us as we grow older are more fearful of physical injury.” In the case of compensation neurosis, the : injury has merely switched the preoccupation of the personal problems of such person to a different focal point. Such a neurosis has been described as an escape mechanism, developed in many cases as a defense against unpleasant work, an intolerable family life, or other personal prob-1 lems. See 3 Lawyers’ Medical Cyclopedia,1 § 20.2; 30 Virginia L.Rev. 87; 2 Gray, Attorneys’ Textbook of Medicine (3d Ed.) , 1095. Warren L. Hanna compared a person with compensation neurosis to a child who develops a stomach-ache to avoid going, to school; an inadequate person realizing his deficiencies, rebelling against the exigencies of earning a living. It is a situation where any injury offers an excuse for a paid vacation. The claimant in this case feared that his divorced wife would reclaim their children from his custody. Dr. Smith, testifying in this case, defined “compensation neurosis” as “an unconscious motivation because of all these insurance settlements and the trauma of our time. There is unconscious motivation for monetary awards for an injury.” As it is often expressed, the claimant suffers from com-pensationitis and is subject to an effective cure by application of a “greenback poultice.” The treatment for traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis is entirely different. In most cases, the treatment for traumatic neurosis is to retrain the workman for a different type of work so that he will not be subject to the hazards which caused his injury. The treatment for “compensation neurosis,” on the contrary, according to the testimony of Dr. Smith, is settlement of the workman’s compensation claim by the ."payment of money. He said: “Now, true 'Compensation neurosis as soon as they receive a settlement they will be able to go back to work.” Dr. Smith further explained , the neurosis as : “Well, I mean, in our time if people read about being hurt on the job and attaining large settlements then it seems to me quite natural for some person who is having a hard time of making a go of it to almost automatically set into an injury a certain amount of factors of wanting compensation for their injury. Everybody else gets it so naturally they are going to want it.” The only case relied upon by the majority or cited by Larson actually allowing compensation for “anxiety” or “compensation neurosis” is Hood v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522, 209 S.W.2d 345, which was decided by a divided court, four to three, with a strong three-judge dissent. The reasoning of the Texas court is not persuasive to me. The basis of the majority Texas opinion appears to be merely that the workman was unable to work, then why should he not be compensated. That court even said that the reasoning in a case involving a judgment in tort for personal injuries was applicable and decisive. The basis of the majority opinion in the Texas case, I think, is illustrated by the later decision of that court in Bailey v. American Gen. Ins. Co., 154 Tex. 430, 279 S.W.2d 315, where compensation was allowed a workman who suffered neurosis as a result of watching a scaffold fall with another workman, even' though the claimant was not involved in any accident. In Kowalski v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 116 Conn. 229, 164 A. 653, 86 A.L.R. 957, the neurosis caused by anxiety over pending litigation and uncertainty of continuance of payments was held to be an independent cause and not compensable. I do not push it aside merely because the condition is mental rather than physical, but as I view the matter, compensation neurosis, or, as may psychiatrists and authors term it, “desire neurosis” is clearly an independent cause and not compensable under our statute. I have no quarrel with the theory that compensation neurosis is a disease. However, I think the appeal should be to the legislature to make it compensable as it did certain occupational diseases. I cannot agree with the majority that (1) the testimony of Dr. Lowery must be disregarded, or (2) that the testimony of Dr. Smith is conclusive in establishing the causal connection between the claimed disability and the accident as a medical probability. It is well established that § 59 — 10— 13.3, N.M.S.A.1953, requires the claimant, as a condition to recovery, to affirmatively establish the causal connection between the accident and the claimed disability as a medical probability. The majority arrive at the conclusion that the required causal connection has been established by the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Smith; that the trial court was under a duty to so find; that such fact is binding on this court; and that on appeal this court will either supply that fact or direct the trial court to so find. This court has no right to make such a determination. Even if it be assumed for the moment, for this argument alone, that Dr. Smith’s testimony stands uncontradicted, Montano v. Saavedra, 70 N.M. 332, 373 P.2d 824, is controlling on the question of the opinion testimony of a medical expert as to causal connection between the accident and disability, when it said: “ * * * The testimony of the doctor concerning whether the injury caused the disability was opinion testimony and as such was not conclusive, and the trier of the facts could- accept, reject or give such weight only as it deemed the same entitled to have, even though uncontra-dicted. * * * ” See, also, Teal v. Potash Company of America, 60 N.M.. 409, 292 P.2d 99; State v. Moore, 42 N.M. 135, 76 P.2d 19; Jamison v. Shelton, 35 N.M. 34, 289 P. 593. The trial court, in refusing claimant’s tendered finding of causal connection, determined that issue against the claimant. In my view, a mere reading of Montano v. Saavedra, supra, and Renfro v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 75 N.M. 235, 403 P.2d 681, discloses that the rule announced in those decisions to the effect that opinion testimony as such is not conclusive, even, when not contradicted, was clearly not dicta in either case. In Saavedra the decision turned on whether a finding by the trial court that causal connection had not been established was supported in view of the medical opinion to the contrary. The nja--jority have clearly recognized and re-; affirmed the rule of Jamison v.. Shelton, supra, in which this court expressly declared expert opinion to be merely opinion evidence and not conclusive even when urn contradicted. The majority do not contend that .the identical Saavedra and Renfro rule was dicta in Jamison. I find no valid distinction between the opinion evidence said not to be conclusive in Jamison and that of Dr. Smith in the instant case. The majority seem to be clearly inconsistent in reaffirming the opinion rule of Jamison and in the same breath establishing a contrary rule here. . It is well established that the fact finder is entitled to draw all reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence and that this court on .appeal must likewise indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the-trial court’s findings and in support of the-judgment, and must disregard all evidence- and' inferences to the contrary. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Jolly, 67 N.M. 101, 352 P.2d 1013; Mountain States Aviation, Inc. v. Montgomery, 70 N.M. 129, 371 P.2d 604; Cochran v. Gordon, 69 N.M. 346, 367 P.2d 526. Likewise, the trier of the facts must determine the credibility of the witness, reconcile inconsistent statements of the witness, and say where the truth lies. Banes Agency v. Chino, 60 N.M. 297, 291 P.2d 328; Zengerle v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. of New York, 63 N.M. 454, 321 P.2d 636; Luna v. Flores, 64 N.M. 312, 328 P.2d 82. It is clear that Dr. Smith, whose medical testimony is wholly relied upon by the majority, subscribes to the “but for” reasoning in reaching a causal connection between the claimant’s desire for compensation and an accidental injury. The majority point to his testimony when questioned as to whether the injury caused the compensation neurosis and quote Dr. Smith as saying: I " * * * In other words, you can’t have a .traumatic neurosis or compensation neurosis without having something to develop and precipitate the traumatic neurosis or precipitate something to develop or give someone motivation compensation.” What Dr. Smith was saying was that there can be no recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Statute without an antecedent accidental injury, and that in the sense that such an injury is necessary as a prerequisite to recovery, there is a causal connection between the two. In other words, “but for” the antecedent injury, there could of course be no basis for compensation payments. I think that under applicable rules, the trial court could reasonably draw such an inference from the testimony and conclude that even accepting the testimony of Dr. Smith, there had nevertheless not been the requisite proof of causal connection as a matter of law. It is equally well established that the facts found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case rests in an appellate court, and based upon the applicable rules, I think the majority are wrong in determining the facts. This court has no right to determine, contrary to that made by the trial court, that causal connection has been established as a medical probability. The trial court having determined that the claimant failed to carry his burden of establishing the required causal connection, this court is bound thereby and must affirm the judgment appealed from. Dr. Lowery testified that if the claimant was a well-adjusted individual prior to the injury on July 4th, he would question whether this injury “could have precipitated such an episode;” that if claimant was, at the time of the accident, having a considerable emotional difficulty, the accident could possibly have triggered the blackout condition. In answer to a question of “whether it is a' reasonable probability from your training and experience that he is now disabled from the trauma or injury,” he answered, “I can’t say that it is a probability because I don’t know what Mr. Ross was like before.” Considering the testimony of Dr. Lowery as a whole, together with the expression of medical textwriters on the subject, I think the trial court might well have concluded that the doctor was using the word “I” in the sense of “we” or “a doctor.” He had just explained that it was necessary to know the patient’s emotional condition prior to the accident to reach a medical conclusion as to the causal connection. The textwriters support that statement of Dr. Lowery. 3 Lawyers’ Medical Cyclopedia, § 20.18, and the statement, 30 Va.L.Rev. 87 at 90: “ * * * it is necessary in our opinion to take into account the pre-traumatic personality for the purpose of discovering what part of the total injury really represents a pre-existing neurotic constitution merely expressing itself by more obvious symptoms in response to stimuli which would cause no such symptoms in a normally constituted person. * * * ” The trial court might well have drawn a reasonable inference from Dr. Lowery’s testimony that it was his opinion that knowledge of the patient’s prior condition was necessary to enable a doctor to express an opinion as to causal connection — not that Dr. Lowery could not do so but that in his opinion no doctor could express such an opinion without such knowledge of prior conditions. Such an infererice'only bolsters the court’s denial of the tendered finding on causal connection and his rejection of Dr. Smith’s opinion respecting such causal connection. The trial court had a right to construe testimony, resolve conflicts, evaluate it and to draw therefrom all reasonable inferences. I know of no rule which permits an appellate court, after determining that a finding lacks support, to itself make the requisite finding or direct the court as to a particular finding to be made, as was done by the majority in directing the trial court to accept the tendered finding that traumatic neurosis and compensation neurosis had rendered the claimant totally disabled. I think there is no medical testimony to support such a direction by this court. Dr. Smith, in answer to a question as to what future therapy he proposed, answered: “Well, if I were going to make a final decision in the case, I would want to the man in the hospital and observe by myself for a more prolonged period of time to arrive at what percentage of disability the traumatic — of what percentage— and what per cent I felt was purely compensation.” Both, upon the ground that the trial court had a right to conclude' that claimant failed to carry his burden of establishing a causal connection between the accident and the claimed disability and that compensation neurosis or desire neurosis is not.compensa-ble under New Mexico’s 'Workmen’s Compensation Law, I dissent from the majority.