 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shivel v. Wexford Health Sources3/11/2003
ded only that " njury or personal injury shall not include mental injury that is unaccompanied by physical injury." This Court held that the claimants rape and injuries sustained in that rape met the "statutorily required accompaniment of compensable physical injury, which included claimant's injury to the back, and psychological injury exists and resulted from accidental injury." Wal Mart Stores v. Reinholtz, 1998 OK 11, , 955 P.2d at 226. Thus, this Court found that claimant's rape resulted in psychological overlay when accompanied with the accidental injury.
The applicable statute in effect at the time of Shivel injury was 85 O.S. Supp. 1997 §3(10)(c), which was amended after the opinion in Reinholtz. It reads:
"Injury" or "personal injury " shall not include mental injury that is unaccompanied by physical injury, except in the case of rape which arises out of and in the course of employment;
Employer argues that under the present facts Shivel is entitled to benefits only for her physical injuries and not for the psychological overlay that respondent contends resulted from the incident itself, rather than the physical injury claimant sustained arising from and in the course of employment.
Here, in holding that the claimant's psychological overlay is compensable, the Court of Civil Appeals relied on the Reinholtz explanation of the 1992 amendment. In so doing, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that psychological injury need only be accompanied by physical injury.
The employer, argues that, because Reinholtz was a rape claim for which the legislature carved out a specific exception, under that facts of the case at hand, the mental injury sustained by Shivel is not compensable. The employer argues that the psychological injury, accompanied by physical injury, should not be compensable unless the psychological injury originated from the physical injury. We find this argument to be unpersuasive.
In the present matter, Petitioner was attacked by an inmate and suffered physical injuries to her clavicle, back and neck, for which she received temporary total disability compensation. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the requirement of 85 O.S.Supp. 1998 §3(10)(c), that her psychological injury was accompanied by physical injury, and hence, her psychological overlay claim is compensable.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT REVERSED.
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR
|