What Do You Think?
To obtain compensation for an occupational disease, an employee has to show that she had the condition and that her job caused it. A case involving an emergency dispatcher highlights the critical role that expert testimony plays in such cases.
The claimant worked as a dispatcher for 20 years. During that time, she dealt with many alarming and disturbing situations. She said that her continued exposure to trauma and crises led her to develop PTSD.
During the time she worked as a dispatcher, she also faced personal challenges. For example, she had a son with disabilities who was placed in a residential facility after engaging in violent acts toward her, such as holding a belt across her neck while she was sleeping. She also went through a divorce that required her to get a restraining order and suffered severe health complications from an unsuccessful surgery.
A psychologist and psychiatrist conducted medical evaluations and testified for the employer. They concluded that the claimant developed depression and anxiety during the time she was working as a dispatcher, but primarily due to her personal challenges. They also concluded that she didn’t have PTSD but instead had an adjustment disorder. The psychiatrist suggested she may have been exaggerating her symptoms because she seemed at ease discussing events she claimed had caused her panic attacks.
The claimant put on her own witness, however–a psychologist who diagnosed her with PTSD after a three-hour exam. That doctor reviewed the reports of three nurse practitioners and a licensed clinical social worker, all occurring after 2020. Those reports didn’t address the claimant’s full medical history. But he concluded that she developed PTSD as a result of her workplace exposure to traumatic events. He admitted that his four-page report was “limited in scope” compared to his usual reports, which were generally 12 to 15 pages long. He said he didn’t review the records of the employer’s two experts.
The Board determined that the claimant failed to provide enough medical evidence to show she developed PTSD from working. The claimant challenged that decision in court, claiming the Board decision was not supported by “substantial evidence.”.
A court will set aside an order that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists to support a finding when the evidence, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.
Did the Board make the wrong decision?
A. Yes. The claimant’s psychologist demonstrated that she developed PTSD because of her exposure to traumatic events over two decades.
B. No. The employer’s experts were more thorough and considered the other stressors in her life.
If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Smicz v. Deschutes County 911 Serv. Dist., No. A182542 (Or. Ct. App. 02/11/26), which found the Board’s decision was based on substantial evidence.
Looking for workers’ compensation compliance info from Oregon? Look to Simply Research.
The court pointed out that the claimant’s expert based his opinion on only part of the claimant’s medical history. He didn’t review the reports of the other doctors who diagnosed her differently. He also failed to address relevant parts of her medical history.
“Instead, he limited his review to the reports of three nurse practitioners and a licensed clinical social worker, all occurring after 2020, that did not fully address claimant’s medical history,” the court said. The expert’s failure to address the evidence that contradicted his opinion helped justify the Board’s decision to give more credit to the employer’s medical experts.
The court affirmed the denial of the claim.
