Where a Medical Panel finds no organic explanation for a worker's ongoing pain symptoms, and the worker has squarely raised in submissions (with supporting medical evidence) an alternative diagnosis of a psychiatrically based chronic pain syndrome, the Panel is required to consider that alternative diagnosis as a mandatory relevant consideration. Failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error. The sequencing of physical and psychiatric examinations by the Panel may be relevant to whether the Panel has properly discharged its function.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.