Ayer v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 04 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | CA-IC,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Lucille R. AYER, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Greyhound Lines West, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier. 1030. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioner's claim for compensation was denied by the Industrial Commission on the ground that no causal connection had been established between her employment and the alleged injury; and further, that she had failed to show that she had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Briefly the facts are as follows. Petitioner had worked as a switchboard operator for the respondent, Greyhound Corporation for 27 years. Her duties consisted of running a switchboard, giving bus schedule information, paging people in the terminal, and furnishing information by telephone. With the transfer of the company's executive offices to the City of Phoenix and the construction of a new bus terminal there, she found that her duties had become more complex and difficult.
Petitioner suffered from various mental and physical problems, including hypertension and irregular heartbeats. On May 26, 27, and 29, 1972, she experienced nosebleeds; the last one being of such severity that she had to be treated in the emergency room of a hospital. On the advice of her physician, Dr. John Miller, she did not thereafter return to work.
Following a hearing on May 23, 1973, an award was entered sustaining the denial of compensation. An examination of the evidence requires that we affirm the decision of the Commission.
Petitioner urges that the hearing officer was incorrect in his finding that the medical evidence had not established that her high blood pressure, anxiety, or heart problems had been caused by or were permanently aggravated by her employment.
Medical testimony was presented by four physicians: Drs. John Miller, Maier Tuchler, William Sheeley, and Robert Nemad. Though all agreed that petitioner could not in her present condition return to her job at Greyhound, their opinions were conflicting and unclear as to her specific mental and physical ailments.
According to the testimony of Dr. Miller, a general practitioner, petitioner's work as a switchboard operator aggravated her disabling condition. He did not specify the particulars of that disability, but did state, among other things, that petitioner was suffering from chronic anxiety; and that she could not handle any type of stressful employment because of emotional reaction to her job.
On the other hand, no physical disability was diagnosed by Dr. Miller. He related that her hypertension and other ailments did not prevent her from working, but that if she continued to work, at some point in the future she would have some permanent effects. Cf. Spacone v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 351, 483 P.2d 583 (1971).
Dr. Tuchler, a psychiatrist and neurologist, based his opinion on petitioner's make-up, physical symptoms, and emotional condition, and stated that her work contributed to her feelings of apprehension, anxiety and tension, and therefore aggravated her present condition.
However, a contrary opinion was voiced by Dr. Sheeley, another psychiatrist, who testified that petitioner suffered from hysterical neurosis, conversion type, and a passive dependent personality. The latter condition he described as a reluctance to accept what would be considered normal amounts of stress, and the tendency to become somewhat tense, anxious and depressed when subjected to stresses. According to Dr. Sheeley, petitioner's psychiatric condition had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunlavey v. Economy Fire and Cas. Co.
...and traumatic or sudden mental stimuli, allowing recovery only for injuries caused by the latter. See, e.g., Ayer v. Industrial Comm'n, 23 Ariz.App. 163, 531 P.2d 208, 211 (1975); Jose v. Equifax, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Tenn.1977). Because we agree with Professor Larson that "the distinct......
-
Seitz v. L & R Industries, Inc. (Palco Products Division)
...Id. at 567, 343 N.E.2d at 919. As an example of a contrary conclusion, one might consider the case of Ayer v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App. 163, 531 P.2d 208 (1975), in which a switchboard operator was denied compensation for mental problems that she claimed to be the result of the in......
-
McDonough v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co.
...It merely found a lack of work-related causation where the claimant's heart attack occurred at home. Finally, Ayer v. Industrial Commission, 23 Ariz.App. 163, 531 P.2d 208 (1975), merely states that under Arizona law "[a] disabling mental condition brought about by the gradual buildup of em......
- Hughes v. Hughes