CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns a psychiatric injury claim where the defense argues the applicant's testimony is unreliable due to schizophrenia and that the injury must be based on actual, not perceived, employment events. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the treating physician's reports lacked analysis and relied on an applicant's narrative contradicted by the judge's findings. The matter is remanded for further development of the medical record and a new decision, applying the Verga interpretation that psychological injury claims require objective evidence of employment stressors.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns a psychiatric injury claim where the defense argues the applicant's testimony is unreliable due to schizophrenia and that the injury must be based on actual, not perceived, employment events. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the treating physician's reports lacked analysis and relied on an applicant's narrative contradicted by the judge's findings. The matter is remanded for further development of the medical record and a new decision, applying the Verga interpretation that psychological injury claims require objective evidence of employment stressors.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.