The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
QMERelied upon · psychiatry
Diagnosed clinical psychiatric syndrome and chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; assigned 90% industrial causation with 70% to perceived versus actual stress, harassment and mistreatment (deferred to trier of fact) and 20% to personnel actions; found personnel actions were not a substantial cause of injury.
Dr. Marusak deferred to the trier of fact to determine compensability of perceived versus actual harassment and mistreatment and found personnel actions were not a substantial cause of injury.
From the decision · page 2Psychiatric qualified medical examiner (QME) Susan L. Marusak, M.D., evaluated
secondary_treaterPartially credited · psychology
Provided reports supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to increased workload and stress.
Referenced in dissenting opinion as supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to workload and stress.
From the decision · page 6DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISIONER MARGUERITE SWEENEY
For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that the trial record likely supports a
finding that the increasing amount of work assigned to applicant resulted in a work overload and
her repeated requests for help, which in turn caused her psychiatric injury. Under these
circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to further develop the record, and based thereon, I
respectfully dissent.
Applicant testified that she had increasingly more work assigned to her, that the project
managers did not timely approve the invoices applicant needed in order to meet the payment
timelines, and that over time, there was more strict enforcement of those timelines. (MOH/SOE,
pp. 6 § 9.) Her testimony is consistent with the email exhibits (App. Exhs. 6, 7, 9, and 11), and the
reports from treating physicians Heath Hinze, Psy.D., and William C. Sim, M.D. (See App. Exhs.
2, 3 and 4.)
It appears that although QME Dr. Marusak determined applicant's psychiatric injury was
predominantly caused by stress, excessive workload, and the harassment/mistreatment by her
supervisor, she could not determine whether applicant's injury was caused by "actual events of
employment." (App. Exh. 1, p.
secondary_treaterPartially credited · medicine
Provided reports supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to increased workload and stress.
Referenced in dissenting opinion as supporting applicant's claim of psychiatric injury due to workload and stress.
From the decision · page 6DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISIONER MARGUERITE SWEENEY
For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that the trial record likely supports a
finding that the increasing amount of work assigned to applicant resulted in a work overload and
her repeated requests for help, which in turn caused her psychiatric injury. Under these
circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to further develop the record, and based thereon, I
respectfully dissent.
Applicant testified that she had increasingly more work assigned to her, that the project
managers did not timely approve the invoices applicant needed in order to meet the payment
timelines, and that over time, there was more strict enforcement of those timelines. (MOH/SOE,
pp. 6 § 9.) Her testimony is consistent with the email exhibits (App. Exhs. 6, 7, 9, and 11), and the
reports from treating physicians Heath Hinze, Psy.D., and William C. Sim, M.D. (See App. Exhs.
2, 3 and 4.)
It appears that although QME Dr. Marusak determined applicant's psychiatric injury was
predominantly caused by stress, excessive workload, and the harassment/mistreatment by her
supervisor, she could not determine whether applicant's injury was caused by "actual events of
employment." (App. Exh. 1, p.