 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nakamura v. State9/26/2000
federal government was developing technology to control people's minds. Claimant told Dr. Ponce that he treated with Dr. Gordon Trockman for the 1988 work injury.
Claimant also told Dr. Ponce about the work environment when he became employed by Employer. Claimant stated that he was verbally abused and threatened by his supervisors from the time he began to work in April of 1992. Claimant told Dr. Ponce that because he needed the job , he "took all the abuses" and repressed his anger. He stated that the garnishment was the "last straw" and that resulted in his filing a claim.
Dr. Ponce's review of Claimant's medical records corroborated Claimant's history of a stress claim in 1988. According to Dr. Ponce, the records indicated that Dr. Trockman had diagnosed Claimant with paranoid psychosis because of hallucinations and "ideas of reference". Claimant was treated with therapy and anti-psychotic medication until May 4, 1989, when Dr. Trockman released him to as needed care only.
Dr. Ponce diagnosed Claimant's current condition as schizophrenia, paranoid type, episodic, with inter-episode residual symptoms. Dr. Ponce opined that Claimant had this paranoid disorder as early as 1988, that this condition did not resolve or remit entirely, as he continued to experience difficulties with various supervisors in his job , and that this psychiatric condition was exacerbated by the garnishing of his wages by the IRS on September 15, 1995.
19. On February 20, 1996, Claimant was administered an MMPI personality test by Dr. William Tsushima, Ph.D. According to Dr. Tsushima, the MMPI personality profile showed that Claimant was not psychotic, but did have behavioral and interpersonal problems. Dr. Tsushima's impression was adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.
20. In an October 28, 1996 report, Dr. Shimizu responded to Dr. Ponce's findings and conclusions. While she concurred with Dr. Ponce that Claimant had a history of a paranoid disorder in 1988, for which he received treatment with Dr. Trockman, she disagreed with Dr. Ponce's diagnosis of a continuing psychotic disorder. Dr. Shimizu opined that Dr. Tsushima's MMPI profile supports her opinion that Claimant is not currently psychotic.
21. At trial, Dr. Shimizu testified that Claimant first presented to her on September 20, 1995. He was, at that time, agitated, upset, and angry. According to Dr. Shimizu, Claimant told her about the garnishment and the hostile work environment that he worked in for the past three years. Dr. Shimizu stated that it appeared that Claimant was particularly upset with one individual at work, who, according to Claimant, frequently used profanity at him.
Dr. Shimizu opined at trial that Claimant had a pre-existing psychiatric condition that was exacerbated by the IRS garnishment. Dr. Shimizu did not clearly identify the pre-existing condition. Dr. Shimizu acknowledged, however, that while Claimant may have been stressed about his work environment prior to September 15, 1995, he was able to work up until the day his wages were garnished. She identified Claimant's current diagnosis as depression and a mixed adjustment disorder.
22. Although there is a difference in opinion as to the diagnosis of Claimant's current condition, we credit the opinions of Dr. Ponce and Dr. Shimizu, the description of the industrial injury in Dr. Shimizu's WC-2 reports, and Claimant's testimony that the garnishment was the "last straw", to find that the IRS garnishment on September 15, 1995, exacerbated a pre-existing psychiatric condition on that date that prompted Claimant to leave work and seek treatment.
While Dr. Shimizu did not identify the pre
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|