Print/PDF

Psychiatrist’s testing insufficient to find a substantially aggravated psychological condition

In Little v. Dayton Public Schools, 2015-Ohio-197, a janitor had allowed conditions of contusion and sprain of the hand, and sprain of the forearm.  She sought the additional condition of substantial aggravation of pain disorder associated with psychological condition.  However, the condition was disallowed by the trial court as the only evidence presented by the claimant in support of the condition was the testimony of the a psychiatrist who testified in support of the allowance, but admitted he had not used any objective tests to reach his finding because only psychologists, not psychiatrists use objective diagnostic tools.  On appeal, the Second District upheld the disallowance holding that the statute requires an “objective” finding of “substantial” aggravation.  Accordingly, the testimony of a psychiatrist alone may be insufficient to support a claim of substantial aggravation of a psychological condition as they may not be able to meet the requirement of objective findings.  You can read the entire opinion here.

For more information on substantial aggravation and allowance of psychological conditions, please join us on March 6th for our Spring Seminar.  More details and registration are available here.

News

  • Carl Habekost Discusses Workplace Violence at the Lucas County Bar AssociationRead more

Events

  • Win Spooktacular Prizes at Our Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar!Read more

Seminar Registration

Register for our October 6, 2017 Annual Labor & Employment Seminar here. A confirmation will be emailed to you separately.