Pais v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 14 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 10699--PR,10699--PR
• Parties: Dorothy Irene PAIS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Starrett's, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 1175

492 P.2d 1175

108 Ariz. 68

Dorothy Irene PAIS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Starrett's, Respondent Employer, State Compensation Fund, Respondent Carrier.

No. 10699--PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Jan. 14, 1972.

Gorey & Ely by Joseph M. Bettini, Phoenix, for petitioner.

William C. Wahl, Jr., Chief Counsel, Phoenix, for respondent.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, by Cecil A. Edwards, Jr., Phoenix, for respondent carrier.

CAMERON, Justice.

This court granted the petition of Dorothy Irene Pais for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, Pais v. Industrial Commission, 15 Ariz.App. 428, 489 P.2d 275 (1971), which affirmed an award of the Industrial Commission finding temporary disability only.

We are called upon to determine whether the testimony of phychiatrist based solely upon a file review is substantial evidence. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. Petitioner, Dorothy Irene Pais, a 52 year old seamstress, while within the scope of her employment injured her left hand on 7 October 1967. Petitioner continued to complain of pain and disability and was referred to Dr. R. A. Huger, a psychiatrist, in December of 1967. She was also examined by Dr. John H. Ricker, an orthopedic specialist with a sub-specialty in hands. On 23 February 1968 the Commission issued its findings and award for temporary disability finding that the petitioner had no permanent physical or mental disability resulting from the accident. This award was protested and request for hearing was filed, alleging a continuous psychiatric disability.

Prior to this hearing and at the request of the State Compensation Fund, Dr. William McGrath, a psychiatrist, submitted a one-page report entitled 'File Review.' Dr. McGrath had previously examined the petitioner in 1965. Dr. McGrath's report, dated 25 November 1968, concluded:

'Comment: A review of the file, with particular reference to the accident of 10--7--67 (BE 44731) tends to reinforce rather dramatically our opinion of 10--26--65; namely, that the patient consciously and unconsciously strives to relate a variety of auto-suggested or psychophysiological complaints to a seemingly trivial but compensable injury. One might question whether this could be classified as a psychiatric disorder. In any event, the effect of a minor accident is of lasting duration not in fact but in the patient's wishful thinking.'

At the hearing Dr. Ricker testified:

'Q At that time, Doctor, what were her subjective complaints?

'A Well, pain in her left hand over the entire hand radiating up her arm to her shoulder, inability to straighten her fingers out well, and some kind of a band in her palm. She also said that her nerves were bad.

'Q I take it again you found no objective sign as to the cause for these complaints, is that so?

* * *

* * *

'A That is so. I find, however, she does have a ridge in the palm of her hand which she had complained of. That was the only objective finding at that time.

* * *

* * *

'Q Doctor, since you find no physical cause for this phenomenon, can you tell us, is it probable that the cause is malingering or something like that or desire to deceive?

'A I am not quite sure exactly what 'malingering' means. If it means willful intent to increase disability or show disability, I would say not. I am sure it is not malingering.

'Q Then what we are left with, Doctor, would be some kind of a mental state which induces this problem, is that right?

'A I would suspect so, although I am not a psychiatrist, so I couldn't answer that truthfully.

'Q I realize your specialty, which I very much respect, as you know, Doctor. But this actually was your final conclusion, was it not, Doctor, that the problem as far as you can see--is the problem as far as you can see real to Mrs. Pais?

'A Oh, I think it is, yes.

'Q Is this based upon your experience of seeing thousands or at least hundreds and hundreds of people in hand matters?

'A Yes.'

Dr. Raymond A. Huger, M.D., a psychiatrist, testified:

'Q Do you feel that she had an underlying or pre-existing personality problem?

'A Yes, I do.

'Q Do you feel that this underlying personality problem was aggravated by the accident in question?

'A I think it was.

'Q Do you feel that this aggravation was a factor in bringing about the condition that you found to exist as of the time of the discharge?

'A Yes.'

On cross-examination the Doctor testified:

'Q So I guess, then, Doctor, it is fair to state that, at the time you saw her, at least, she was suffering from some sort of psychoneurotic disorder; is that correct?

'A Correct.

* * *

* * *

'Q * * * Have you had occasion at any time in your professional career to have before you a case history of a person with all pertinent information with regard to background and so forth?

'A You mean having seen the patient?

'Q Without ever having seen the patient.

'A. No. I wouldnt' say that would be a very wise thing to do.'

Dr. McGrath testified over objection of the attorney for the petitioner. He stated as follows:

'Q Doctor, have you seen Mrs. Pais since the second injury, or was it strictly a file review?

'A I have not seen her, and it was strictly a file review.'

And on cross-examination he testified as follows:

'Q Doctor, I take it you have not physically examined this lady's hand at all, is that correct?

'A That is correct.

*...