Court Opinion

ID: 9571899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:36:07.779682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:09.266616
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
The findings and conclusions of the Industrial Commission, approved by the majority opinion, are internally inconsistent and contrary to law and therefore I must dissent to minimize the precedential value of this case.
The medical testimony accepted by the Commission is that the claimant has a 15% impairment rating comprised of:
(1) 8% for loss of function; and
(2) 7% for “conversion reaction” or “conversion hysteria”.
By definition, “conversion reaction” means the worker truly cannot return to work and therefore is totally disabled.
Thus, the Commission had two legally and factually appropriate decision alternatives, only one of which it could make:
(1) To disallow (disbelieve) the existence of the conversion reaction, and award only 8% permanent partial disability; or
(2) Award permanent total disability or at least a substantial component for non-medical factors.
Thus the case should be remanded for the entry of consistent findings and conclusions — my view is that the claimant is fortunate that such is not ordered — because the testimony indicates that if either the medical experts or the Commission had fully understood and applied the results which necessarily flow from a diagnosis of “eon-*177version reaction,” the award would have been entered at 8%.
BISTLINE, J., concurs.