Keeling v. State Industrial Court ( 1964 )

BERRY, Justice

(specially concurring).

It. is my opinion the order of the State Industrial Court should be affirmed, but that such affirmance should include recognition of matters hereinafter noted.

It is my belief that the claimant did not present sufficient competent evidence to sustain the burden of establishing that her disability arose out of and in the course of her employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 85 O.S.1961 § 11, and Edmonds v. Skelly Oil Co., 204 Okl. 471, 231 P.2d 360.

Recognizably, the mind is the most com-"Slex part of the human anatomy. The causes of mental illness are many and' varied, and often determination is speculative and then only after long observation and study by experts. The anxiety attendant upon maintaining one’s position of employment may, under certain conditions, be considered together with other circumstances occurring during and in the course of employment which may combine to produce a compensable injury. However, I do not believe that this is true as concerns the present case. The only evidence bearing upon the question whether the necessary sitting position caused claimant’s mental breakdown is too remote and too speculative to sustain the .requisite burden herein:

In my view, in order for an employee to be compensated for (an injury resulting from) a nervous breakdown, would necessitate competent evidence to establish that the mental condition found to exist actually resulted from the particular employment. Evidence showing that the employment is merely incidental to the mental condition would not be sufficient. Such expert testimony would carry with it the degree of proof necessary to remove speculation as to the cause of injury.