 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hay v. Schwartz12/29/1998
676. As such, the Board and the District were required to present expert medical testimony to rebut Hay's prima facie case for benefits. The record reveals that they failed to do so. Thus, they failed to carry their burden.
The Board argues that Dr. Kling's testimony was not substantial and competent evidence to support Hay's application for benefits because it was disclosed at the hearing that he was not aware of the fact that Hay had attended three or four sessions of marriage counseling in 1991. The Board claims that if Dr. Kling had known of the marriage counseling, his opinion as to the cause of Hay's disability would necessarily have changed to reflect that factors other than his job as fire marshall caused Hay's disability. The Board has failed to articulate how this information was material to Dr. Kling's diagnosis of Hay such that it would have changed his opinion as to the cause of his mental disability. Despite the Board's attempts to characterize Hay's marriage counseling as counseling for psychological problems, we fail to see how a few sessions of marriage counseling, three years before the onset of Hay's symptoms of anxiety and depression relating to his job, could be construed as mental health counseling such that Dr. Kling's awareness of it would have had any impact on his opinion as to the cause of Hay's disability.
The Board in its brief also claims that Hay's testimony directly contradicted Dr. Kling's testimony as to Hay's lack of psychiatric treatment between September 1995 and February 1996 and his lack of stress since leaving his job as fire marshall such that Dr. Kling's testimony was not competent and substantial evidence supporting Hay's application for benefits. We fail to see how Hay's testimony, in this respect, contradicted that of Dr. Kling in any way. It is not clear whether Hay told Dr. Kling that he received psychiatric treatment between September 1995 and February 1996. Dr. Kling's notes on this subject read: "Notes per the psychiatrist are not legible, but apparently there was a consultation in June of 1995 through February 1996." Thus, Dr. Kling could have come to this Conclusion from his own interpretation of the psychiatrist's notes. As for Hay's stress-free life since leaving his job as fire marshall, both Dr. Kling and Hay testified that his functioning had returned to normal since leaving his job and that he was experiencing less stress. They did not contradict each other on this point.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the substantial and competent evidence supported Hay's application for benefits pursuant to section 70.680.3 and, thus, the decision of the Board denying him the same was not supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.
Conclusion
The judgment of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Board denying Hay benefits is affirmed.
All concur.
Separate Opinion: None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|