AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over a worker's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a psychological condition following an injury. The employer-insurer contested the worker's entitlement to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for this condition, arguing that deposition testimony regarding the worker's maximum medical improvement (MMI) should be conclusive and that other evidence of MMI for the psychological condition was not admissible.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Employer-Insurer: Argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by not accepting deposition testimony as conclusive for determining the worker's MMI and that other evidence regarding the worker's MMI for a psychological condition was inadmissible. Later, they contended that the worker violated the pre-trial order's terms by raising the issue of entitlement to TTD for the psychological condition, which was not listed as a contested issue, and that the WCJ improperly allowed this amendment, causing prejudice to the employer-insurer.
• Worker: Supported the inclusion of the entitlement to TTD benefits for the psychological condition as a contested issue and argued against the employer-insurer's position on the admissibility of evidence for MMI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in allowing evidence other than deposition testimony to show the worker's MMI for a psychological condition.
• Whether the worker violated the pre-trial order by presenting the issue of entitlement to TTD for the psychological condition, and if the amendment of the pre-trial order to include this issue caused prejudice to the employer-insurer.

Disposition

• The appeal from the workers' compensation order was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court found that the deposition testimony cited by the employer-insurer was irrelevant to the issue of MMI for the psychological condition and that the evidence supporting MMI on this condition was admissible. The court also determined that the amendment of the pre-trial order to include the issue of TTD benefits for the psychological condition did not cause prejudice to the employer-insurer, especially since the employer-insurer consented to the amendment at trial. The court's decision was based on the lack of prejudice to the employer-insurer and the admissibility of evidence supporting the worker's MMI for the psychological condition.