The administrative law judge erred in finding that employee failed to sustain his burden of proof that he sustained psychiatric stress and a mental/cerebral hemorrhage due to his supervisor's emotional harassment and abuse.
The administrative law judge's award is erroneous because its credibility findings are not supported by competent evidence, in particular the finding that Dr. Michael R. Jarvis was more credible than Dr. Raymond F. Cohen.
Dr. Jarvis examined employee on November 29, 2016, on behalf of the employer, over six years after employee filed his claim. He issued an initial report on January 19, 2017, and a supplemental report on June 22, 2018. Dr. Jarvis' reports, totally thirty-seven pages, are replete with disparaging remarks about employee that include calling him "crude", "irritable", "difficult", "overly dramatic", and "narcissistic".[^1] Dr. Jarvis criticizes employee for failing to provide a consistent story of the inciting event and accuses him of exaggerating his level of distress. He speculates that the military discharged employee because of employee's questionable performance as a boiler technician. No evidence in the record supports this conclusion. Dr. Jarvis discredits employee's description of his wartime experiences, describing employee's accounts as "fictional".[^2]
Dr. Jarvis opines that employee's claim of a hostile work environment is merely part of a "pattern of deception" in which employee positions himself as an innocent victim.[^3] Dr. Jarvis volunteers, "More likely than not, Mr. Shipley has always been a difficult, irritable and self-important man."[^4] In a vindictive tone, he concludes employee has no disability and no limitations whatsoever from a psychiatric viewpoint. Dr. Jarvis gratuitously attacks the competence of employee's expert, board certified psychiatrist Dr. Adam Sky, dismissing Dr. Sky's expert opinion as "nonsense".[^5] Dr. Jarvis' assessment demonstrates his personal bias against employee and a complete lack of objectivity. As such, his opinion does not constitute competent and substantial evidence in support of the majority's denial of compensation.
The employee presented both medical and lay testimony that his working conditions more likely than not would have caused extraordinary and unusual stress to a worker in the same job. Employee's co-worker Lois Butler testified that based on her experience an employee in a situation similar to employee would have sustained unusual stress. Parks Long testified that employee's supervisors criticized everything employee did and that employee's direct supervisor, Larry Brand, was biased against employee.
Dr. Cohen testified, based on his experience with individuals with stress, that employee was at the top of the list for someone undergoing and enduring stress. He testified, based on an objective standard, that anyone would have been extraordinarily and
[^1]: Transcript, 2972-2974.
[^2]: Id., 2973.
[^3]: Id., 2975.
[^4]: Id., 2974.
[^5]: Id., 2992.
Injury No. 10-033983
Employee: Steven A. Shipley
- 2 -
unusually stressed by the conditions employee experienced at work. Dr. Cohen diagnosed employee's preexisting conditions as post-traumatic stress syndrome, sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus related to his military service. He diagnosed employee's conditions attributable to the primary injury as cerebral infarction, expressive aphasia, weakness in his right hand, right leg and cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, and hypertension. Dr. Cohen found that employee's work related stress was the prevailing factor causing these symptoms, employee's need for medical care and treatment. Dr. Cohen specifically acknowledged that employee had other stroke risk factors, but that these factors were not prevailing factors relevant to causation of conditions he considered attributable to employee's work environment.6
Dr. Cohen concluded,
Due to the work-related severe stress that Mr. Shipley had from his work of 3-18-10 it is my opinion that he has a 65% permanent partial disability of the whole person. It is further my opinion that he is permanently and totally disabled and not capable of gainful employment in today's open labor market.7
Employee has clearly met his burden of proving that he experienced substantially greater work-related stress than that encountered by other employees with similar positions. See Williams v. Depaul Health Center, 996 S.W.2d 619 (Mo. App. 1999). Employee's credible testimony and Dr. Cohen's assessment, the only competent medical expert opinion in the record, supports employee's claim.
I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority's denial of all compensation in this case.
Shalonn K. Curls
Shalonn K. Curls, Member
6 Employee's brief correctly notes that medical literature supports Dr. Cohen's opinion, e.g. "Chronic Stress Linked to High Risk of Stroke." www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120829195207.htm. 7 Transcript, 217.