Nebraska Reports

WORLINE v. ABB/ALSTOM POWER, 272 Neb. 797 (2006) MICHAEL
WORLINE, APPELLEE, v. ABB/ALSTOM POWER INTEGRATED CE
SERVICES, APPELLANT. No. S-06-038. Supreme Court of
Nebraska. Filed December 22, 2006.

1. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 2004), an appellate court
may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers’ Compensation
Court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted
without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment,
order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not
sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the
making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) the
findings of fact by the compensation court do not support
the order or award.

2. ____: ____. In determining whether to affirm, modify,
reverse, or set aside a judgment of the Workers’
Compensation Court review panel, a higher appellate court
reviews the findings of the trial judge who conducted the
original hearing; the findings of fact of the trial judge
will not be disturbed upon appeal unless clearly wrong.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In
testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
findings of fact made by the Workers’ Compensation Court,
the evidence must be considered in the light most
favorable to the successful party, and the factual findings
by the compensation court have the same force and effect as
a jury verdict in a civil case.

4. ____: ____: ____. If the record contains evidence to
substantiate the factual conclusions reached by the trial
court in workers’ compensation cases, an appellate court
is precluded from substituting its view of the facts for
that of the compensation court.

5. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. When the record
in a workers’ compensation case presents conflicting
medical testimony, an appellate court will not substitute
its judgment for that of the compensation court.

6. Workers’ Compensation: Mental Health. In addition to
physical impairments, psychological injuries are
compensable under the workers’ compensation scheme.

7. Workers’ Compensation: Mental Health: Proof. In workers’
compensation cases involving allegations of psychological
injuries, the burden is on the claimant to prove by a
preponderance of evidence that his disability is the
result of an accident arising out of his employment.

8. Workers’ Compensation: Mental Health. A worker is
entitled to recover compensation for a mental illness if
it is a proximate result of the worker’s injury and
results in disability.

9. Workers’ Compensation: Mental Health: Evidence. Where the
evidence is sufficient to permit the trier of fact to find
that a psychological injury is directly related to the
accident and the employee is unable to work, the employee
is entitled to be compensated.

10. Workers’ Compensation: Time. The date of maximum
medical improvement for purposes of ending a workers’
compensation claimant’s temporary disability is the date
upon which the claimant has attained maximum medical
recovery from all of the injuries sustained in a
particular compensable accident.

Appeal from the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court.
Affirmed.

Paul F. Prentiss and Charles L. Kuper, of Timmermier, Gross
& Prentiss, for appellant.

James R. Harris, of Harris Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellee.

WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, MCCORMACK, and
MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.

WRIGHT, J.

NATURE OF CASE

ABB/Alstom Power Integrated CE Services (Alstom Power)
appeals from the order of a Nebraska Workers’ Compensation
Court review panel affirming the trial court’s award to
Michael Worline for injuries he suffered while employed by
Alstom Power. The Workers’ Compensation Court found that
Worline had suffered injuries to his right shoulder, neck,
and lower back and awarded workers’ compensation benefits in
relation to those injuries, including vocational
rehabilitation services and counseling. We affirm.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

[1] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 2004),
an appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a
Workers’ Compensation Court decision only when (1) the
compensation court acted without or in excess of its
powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by
fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in
the record to warrant the making of the order, judgment, or
award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation
court do not support the order or award. Swoboda v. Volkman
Plumbing, 269 Neb. 20, 690 N.W.2d 166 (2004).

[2] In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or
set aside a judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court
review panel, a higher appellate court reviews the findings
of the trial judge who conducted the original hearing; the
findings of fact of the trial judge will not be disturbed
upon appeal unless clearly wrong. Soto v. State, 269 Neb.
337, 693 N.W.2d 491 (2005).

FACTS

Worline began working as a boilermaker in 1971. His work
consisted of building and repairing coal fire boilers and
other physically demanding tasks. His average weekly wage
in November 2000 was $1,418.29. At the time of the
accident, Worline was working at a power plant in
Sutherland, Nebraska. Worline testified that except for an
unrelated carpal tunnel problem, both his physical and
mental conditions were good before the accident.

On November 2, 2000, Worline and three coworkers were
moving a turnbuckle that weighed 300 to 350 pounds. Worline
carried one end of the turnbuckle with his back to his
coworkers. While they were walking, one employee was sent
to get a piece of equipment and another stopped carrying
the turnbuckle for some unexplained reason. The third
employee dropped his end of the turnbuckle. The weight of
the turnbuckle caused Worline to fall to his knees and bent
him over backward.

Worline was helped to his feet by his coworkers. He felt an
aching pain in his neck, shoulder, and lower back, and he
had trouble walking. The safety coordinator for the jobsite
placed heat and ice on Worline’s neck, shoulder, and lower
back throughout the day.

The following day, Worline returned to the jobsite, but he
felt “real stiff” and could not move his right arm. His
shoulder was making a “cracking” sound. He was examined by
Dr. Jeffrey Brittan, a physician in North Platte, Nebraska.
Brittan noted that Worline had “hurt his shoulder [and] low
back, at work yesterday when a 300 [pound] turnbuckle
knocked him to the ground” and that Worline complained of
shoulder and neck pain. Brittan diagnosed Worline’s
injuries as muscle strain and prescribed muscle relaxants.

Worline testified that he worked for Alstom Power a few
more days on “light duty.” He stopped working around
November 13, 2000, and returned to his home near Casper,
Wyoming. He was examined by Dr. John Barrasso, a general
orthopedist, who reported that Worline had injured his back
and shoulder while working in Nebraska and noted that
problems persisted with Worline’s shoulder; specifically, a
“popping” and “clicking” sound was heard when Worline moved
his shoulder. Barrasso ordered an MRI, which showed some
irregularity with hypertrophy at the acromioclavicular
joint. On December 20, Worline was still experiencing pain
in his shoulder, and Barrasso prescribed 2 weeks of
physical therapy.

Worline saw Barrasso on several occasions throughout 2001.
Worline continued to experience discomfort, and various
alternative treatments were discussed. Barrasso noted that
when Worline performed overhead work or climbing, he
experienced increasing pain in the right shoulder with pain
radiating up into the neck and ear.

Worline’s employment records indicated that he had worked
for some time each month during 2001. Because of continued
discomfort, tenderness, and limited motion in Worline’s
shoulder, he underwent arthroscopic surgery on December 21.
He returned to work as a rigger in Gillette, Wyoming, on
January 18, 2002, and worked there until February 28.
Worline testified that he experienced pain in his neck and
lower back during that time.

When Worline returned to Barrasso on February 4, 2002,
Barrasso recorded the following:

[Worline] tells me now that he is able to distinctly tell
the difference between his right shoulder pain and the
neck pain and in the past he said the whole thing felt
like it was running together. . . . This all relates to
his work related injury and he tells me that they got
onto the back issue right away when he was injured at
work.

As a result of Worline’s complaints of neck pain, Barrasso
ordered MRI’s. An MRI of the cervical spine revealed a
right para-central disk herniation at the C4-5 level. An
MRI of the lumbar spine showed posterior bulging of the
T12-L1 disk and the L5-S1 disk. Barrasso referred Worline
to Dr. Clayton Turner, an orthopedic surgeon who
specialized in spine conditions.

Turner testified that he first treated Worline on March 1,
2002. Worline described his work-related accident of
November 2, 2000, and complained of chronic pain in his
neck, right shoulder, right upper arm, and lower back
stemming from that accident. Turner reviewed the medical
reports and the MRI’s and opined that Worline’s cervical and
lumbar injuries were sustained when the turnbuckle fell on
him in November 2000.

Turner testified that Worline chose to pursue a nonsurgical
option — a nerve block — and according to
Turner, Worline underwent two nerve blocks between March 1
and April 15, 2002. He obtained relief, but it lasted only
2 days after each treatment. Because the relief was
temporary, Turner recommended surgical treatment to include
an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at C4-5. Turner
released Worline to work with these restrictions: no
repetitive lifting, stooping, or bending; no lifting
greater than 20 pounds; and no driving more than 30 minutes
at a time.

Worline testified that between April and October 2002, his
condition deteriorated. He said that during that time, he
had become increasingly depressed and angry over his
injuries and treatment and he visited a psychologist in
July. He also applied for Social Security disability
benefits. Mark Watt, a licensed psychologist, examined
Worline in July 2002 and summarized his findings as
follows:

Worline is . . . currently functioning in the average
range of intellectual and estimated at least low average
range in memory ability. He has been suffering from
frustration, pain, and anger secondary to an injury he
received on the job. He has been currently stressed by his
difficulty in getting needed medical care and disability
that he feels that he is entitled to. . . . It is
obvious that he suffers from chronic pain, frustration,
and anger about how he feels that he has been dealt with
by the disability system.

Watt opined that the prognosis for improvement of Worline’s
mental state was guarded pending resolution of his physical
condition.

Worline was later evaluated by Dr. Bruce Leininger, a
clinical neuropsychologist. Leininger did not offer a firm
diagnosis; however, based on his review of Worline’s
medical records and Leininger’s own observation, he opined
that the “diagnostic formulations” Watt had suggested
concerning Worline’s anger and frustration did not seem
unreasonable. Leininger believed there was a psychological
and emotional overlay to Worline’s symptom reporting and
behavior. Leininger noted that Worline would benefit from
counseling.

Alstom Power requested that Worline obtain a second medical
opinion in relation to his workers’ compensation claim and
the necessity of surgery. Dr. Mark Rangitsch, an orthopedic
specialist in Cheyenne, Wyoming, examined Worline on
September 23, 2002. Based upon the examination and a review
of Worline’s medical records, Rangitsch believed that the
nature of Worline’s work-related injuries on November 2,
2000, was consistent with the symptoms Worline subsequently
had experienced; that the limitations on his neck,
shoulder, and back were due to the injuries; and that
Worline had not reached maximum medical improvement. He
agreed with Turner that surgery was required. Alstom Power
then authorized Worline’s surgery, which was performed on
October 15, 2002. Turner successfully performed a
decompressive anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion at
the C4-5 level.

Following surgery, Turner examined Worline and advised him
to gradually resume activities as tolerated. On January 6,
2003, Turner completed a form for the Boilermakers National
Health and Welfare Fund. He reported that Worline had not
been released to work. On January 23, Turner noted that
Worline was experiencing minimal discomfort in his neck 3
months after surgery and continued to complain of problems
with his right shoulder. Turner recommended against
Worline’s returning to work as a boilermaker, but believed
he was capable of performing sedentary work with sitting,
standing, and no lifting greater than 10 pounds. In
February, Turner concluded that Worline’s surgery had
resolved the right-sided C-5 radiculopathy; however,
persistent symptoms in the right shoulder caused Turner to
suspect ongoing impingement syndrome with adhesive
capsulitis. He advised Worline to return to Barrasso for
further evaluation.

Barrasso concluded that Worline had significant postural
limitations and could lift no more than 10 pounds. On a
form for the Boilermakers National Health and Welfare Fund,
Barrasso reported that Worline could not work.

On March 18, 2003, Worline saw Dr. Stuart Ruben, his family
physician, and reported that he had been having dizzy
spells, one of which had caused him to fall. Worline
experienced dizziness and ringing in his ears over a period
of 5 months. Worline also saw Dr. Karen Wildman for these
symptoms in June 2003. Wildman examined Worline and noted
that his main concerns were intermittent dizziness and
chronic pain. Worline also expressed frustration that he
had been unable to return to work. He stated that along
with pain in his neck and shoulder, he had been suffering
from frequent muscle tension headaches, which started in
the back of the neck and went to the top of his head.

At the request of Alstom Power, Dr. Bernard Kratochvil, an
orthopedic specialist, conducted an independent medical
examination of Worline on August 11, 2003. Kratochvil
opined that Worline’s complaints of neck discomfort and the
subsequent cervical surgery were caused by degenerative
changes in the cervical spine that preceded the November
2000 work accident. He believed the accident resulted in a
contusion of Worline’s right shoulder but that the
impingement syndrome was not caused by the accident. He
further believed that Worline’s lumbar symptoms were due to
daily living activities. Kratochvil reported that Worline
had reached maximum medical improvement from any injury
sustained on November 2, 2000.

Dr. Tuenis Zondag conducted an independent medical
evaluation in October 2003 at the request of Turner. Zondag
specialized in occupation and pain medicine. Zondag
reviewed Worline’s medical records and met with Worline and
his wife. He opined that Worline’s complaints of pain in
his neck, right shoulder, and lower back were causally
related to his work-related accident in November 2000. He
stated that Worline had reached maximum medical improvement
6 months after the cervical surgery and that Worline had a
34-percent whole person impairment, which incorporated the
neck fusion, midback pain, lumbar pain, and the right
shoulder injury. In Zondag’s opinion, Worline had been
forced to adjust to a change in his life that resulted from
the incident in November 2000 and this change had led to
his anxiety, depression, and some ongoing pain. He stated
that Worline’s substantial work restrictions would be
permanent and that Worline’s inability to be employed was
causally related to his work injuries.

Another independent medical examination was conducted in
May 2004 by Dr. Dean Wampler. He noted that Worline
complained that the workers’ compensation system had caused
him a great deal of emotional distress, that he believed he
had been unable to get the medical care he needed, and that
he had been financially ruined. Wampler opined that
Worline’s right shoulder injury was caused by his November
2000 work duties, but Wampler was unable to form an opinion
regarding the origin of the cervical disk herniation.

Trial was held before the Workers’ Compensation Court on
August 13, 2004. Worline claimed that he injured his right
neck, shoulder, and lower back in the work-related accident
and that as a result of those injuries, he suffered
emotional, psychological, and psychiatric problems. The
trial court found that the injuries to his neck, shoulder,
and lower back arose out of and in the course of his
employment with Alstom Power and that given his physical
limitations, Worline would not be able to work as a
boilermaker.

The trial court found that Worline’s realization that he
could not continue to work as a boilermaker caused him to
be angry and frustrated. The court noted that several of
the medical reports in evidence discussed Worline’s anger
and frustration. It found that Worline’s inability to deal
with his present situation, inability to return to a
high-paying job, and inability to perform physical
activities and labor as he had done in the past were a
result of the injuries suffered in the accident of November
2, 2000.

The trial court directed that Worline receive counseling
and vocational rehabilitation services. It found that
Worline would not reach maximum medical recovery until he
had received counseling. It determined that Worline was
entitled to receive temporary benefits, vocational
rehabilitation services, and all future medical care
arising from the work-related accident. Alstom Power was
ordered to pay certain medical bills for Worline.

Alstom Power asked a review panel of the Workers’
Compensation Court to reverse the trial court’s award. The
company alleged the trial court erred in entering the award
and raised the same errors the company now sets forth in
this court under the assignments of error. The review panel
affirmed the award of the trial court, and this appeal
timely followed. We moved the appeal to our docket.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Alstom Power contends, in summary, that the workers’
compensation court erred (1) in finding that Worline
suffered a compensable injury to his neck as a result of
the accident on November 2, 2000; (2) in finding that
Worline suffered a compensable injury to his lower back as
a result of the November 2000 accident; (3) in ordering the
company to pay medical expenses related to Worline’s neck
injury; (4) in awarding Worline counseling for anger and
frustration as a consequence of the November 2000 accident
and resulting injuries; and (5) in failing to find that
Worline had achieved maximum medical improvement.

ANALYSIS

NECK AND LOW-BACK INJURIES

It is undisputed that the record supports the Workers’
Compensation Court’s finding that Worline sustained
injuries arising out of the course and scope of his
employment. The first issue raised by Alstom Power is
whether competent evidence established that Worline suffered
an injury to his neck. Alstom Power claims the compensation
court was clearly wrong in finding there was a neck injury.
The company relies on the fact that Worline initially did
not mention any injury to his neck. Alstom Power also
relies upon the opinion of Dr. John Goldner, who conducted
an independent evaluation and opined that it was unlikely
Worline would not have noticed neck pain with radicular
symptoms down the right arm even in the presence of right
shoulder pain. Alstom Power contends that ordinary work,
not the November 2000 accident, caused the herniated C4-5
disk. The company claims that the opinions of Turner,
Rangitsch, and Zondag were based upon erroneous statements
regarding Worline’s symptoms and that, therefore, the award
of benefits for a neck injury was clearly wrong.

[3] In our review, we consider the evidence in the light
most favorable to Worline, the successful party, and the
findings of the Workers’ Compensation Court have the same
force and effect as a jury verdict in a civil case. See,
Vega v. Iowa Beef Processors, 270 Neb. 255, 699 N.W.2d 407
(2005); Toombs v. Driver Mgmt., Inc., 248 Neb. 1016, 540
N.W.2d 592 (1995).

Barrasso examined Worline and recorded that he had injured
his back and right shoulder while working. After
arthroscopic shoulder surgery, Barrasso noted that Worline
had tenderness in his neck and that he was distinctly able
to tell the difference between the right shoulder pain and
the neck pain; whereas before surgery, he had felt like the
pain was running together. Turner opined that Worline’s
cervical and lumbar injuries were sustained in the accident
of November 2, 2000. Rangitsch concluded that Worline’s
work-related injuries were consistent with the symptoms
that he subsequently had experienced and that the
limitations of Worline’s neck, shoulder, and back were due
to those injuries. Zondag conducted an independent medical
evaluation of Worline and opined that his neck and low-back
injuries were causally related to the work-related accident
in November 2000.

[4] The evidence before the Workers’ Compensation Court
included the opinions of at least three physicians who
expressed that Worline’s neck injury was caused by the
work-related accident. If the record contains evidence to
substantiate the factual conclusions reached by the trial
court in workers’ compensation cases, an appellate court is
precluded from substituting its view of the facts for that
of the compensation court. Frauendorfer v. Lindsay Mfg.
Co., 263 Neb. 237, 639 N.W.2d 125 (2002).

Regarding Worline’s low-back injury, Alstom Power asserts
that he complained of low-back symptoms immediately after
the work-related accident but that thereafter, the medical
records are devoid of complaints of low-back pain. The
record does not support this assertion. On March 1, 2002,
Turner recorded that Worline suffered from chronic back
pain and he recommended physical therapy and the use of
anti-inflammatory medications. Turner testified that Worline
continued to complain of an aching back. Worline also
testified that he experienced pain in his neck and lower
back while working in 2002. On May 11, 2004, Wampler noted
that Worline was experiencing low-back pain. Turner,
Rangitsch, and Zondag had all concluded that Worline’s
low-back symptoms were causally related to the work
incident. The evidence in the record, viewed in the light
most favorable to Worline, supports the finding of the
trial court that he injured his lower back as a result of
the November 2000 accident.

[5] The trial court is entitled to accept the opinion of
one expert over another. See Zessin v. Shanahan Mechanical
& Elec., 251 Neb. 651, 558 N.W.2d 564 (1997). When the
record in a workers’ compensation case presents conflicting
medical testimony, an appellate court will not substitute
its judgment for that of the compensation court. Sweeney v.
Kerstens & Lee, Inc., 268 Neb. 752, 688 N.W.2d 350 (2004).
The record before us contains sufficient evidence to
substantiate the factual conclusions reached by the
Workers’ Compensation Court regarding Worline’s neck and
low-back injuries. Sufficient competent evidence in the
record supports the judgment of the court, and the findings
of fact by the court support the award.

COUNSELING FOR ANGER AND FRUSTRATION

Concurrently with awarding vocational rehabilitation
services, the trial court found that Worline was entitled
to receive counseling for anger and frustration. This
determination was based upon evidence indicating that
Worline would not achieve maximum medical recovery until he
received such counseling. Alstom Power argues that the trial
court was clearly wrong because the source of Worline’s
anger and frustration was not his physical injuries.

Worline testified that he was feeling very depressed
because he did not have any money and, with regard to his
anger, that he thought “something should be done about the
people who were involved and working for this company.”
Alstom Power claims, therefore, that Worline’s anger, by
his own admission, is related to mental stimuli and not to
his physical injuries and that the compensation court was
clearly wrong in awarding counseling.

[6] In addition to physical impairments, psychological
injuries are compensable under the workers’ compensation
scheme. Kraft v. Paul Reed Constr. & Supply, 239 Neb. 257,
475 N.W.2d 513 (1991). The question is whether there was
sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to
determine that Worline’s psychological injuries were a
result of the work-related accident.

[7-9] In workers’ compensation cases involving allegations
of psychological injuries, the burden is on the claimant to
prove by a preponderance of evidence that his disability is
the result of an accident arising out of his employment.
Id. A worker is entitled to recover compensation for a
mental illness if it is a proximate result of the worker’s
injury and results in disability. Sweeney v. Kerstens &
Lee, Inc., supra. Where the evidence is sufficient to permit
the trier of fact to find that a psychological injury is
directly related to the accident and the employee is unable
to work, the employee is entitled to be compensated. Id.

Worline testified he had never received psychiatric or
psychological treatment before his work injuries of
November 2000 but that as his physical problems arising
from the accident lingered, his psychological condition
deteriorated. Watt, a psychologist, evaluated Worline at
the request of the Social Security Administration and
summarized that Worline had been “suffering from
frustration, pain, and anger secondary to an injury he
received on the job.” Watt diagnosed Worline as suffering
from pain disorder associated with both psychological and
medical conditions and adjustment disorder with mixed
depression and anxiety.

Dr. Jeffrey Coffman, a psychiatrist, also evaluated
Worline. In Coffman’s opinion, the ongoing nature of
Worline’s pain and the work-related disability he had
endured represented the type of stressors recognized as
precipitants in the criteria for adjustment disorder.
Coffman found that sufficient stressors existed from the
injuries and their consequences to induce an adjustment
disorder causing Worline’s current disability.

Zondag, an occupational medicine specialist, testified that
in addition to the physical injuries, Worline experienced
“an adjustment reaction to the change in his life because
of all these things, which led to this anxiety and his
depression and led to some ongoing problem pain.” Zondag
concluded that Worline,

because of the reaction to change that has been produced
upon his body, has got a significant emotional difficulty
that occurred that’s exemplified by . . . over-reporting,
his difficulty with interaction, his difficulty with
speaking out of turn, his difficulty with not always
following the lines of questions. And I think that’s an
adjustment reaction problem that’s there.

Zondag believed that based upon Worline’s work restrictions
and his emotional difficulties, he would not be able to
return to competitive employment or be employable or
retrainable.

Zondag opined that Worline’s emotional difficulties were
causally related to the circumstances surrounding the
work-related accident, which circumstances included the
denial of his workers’ compensation claims and the
resulting litigation, his medical treatment, and the
difficulties he had experienced functioning in his job.
Although a functional capacity evaluation indicated Worline
could do some work, Zondag opined that Worline was unable
to work at that time due to his anger management and
frustration. According to Zondag, Worline’s emotional
response and adjustment reaction were based upon the
injuries of November 2000.

In addressing the issue of anger and frustration, the trial
court found there was no doubt that Worline was unable to
return to his position as a boilermaker and that Worline
knew this and was angry. He had been earning approximately
$50,000 to $60,000 per year and was presently in a position
where he had to find employment. There were no jobs in
Evansville, Wyoming, that would pay $50,000 to $60,000 per
year to someone with Worline’s educational background and
physical restrictions. He was relegated to an entry-level
job that would pay around $12,000 to $15,000 per year,
assuming such job was available.

The compensation court concluded that Worline should be
given counseling for his anger and frustration and that
vocational rehabilitation services should be provided. It
found that Worline’s problem was his inability to deal with
his present situation and his inability to perform physical
activities and physical labor as he had in the past. It
concluded that a counselor should address these issues,
which had resulted from the injuries suffered in the
accident of November 2, 2000.

Alstom Power relies upon our decision in Dyer v. Hastings
Indus., 252 Neb. 361, 562 N.W.2d 348 (1997). In that case,
the trial court concluded that the claimant’s depression
had resulted from a mental stimulus rather than physical
trauma. Dyer is distinguishable because no physical injury
had caused the claimant’s depression. Instead, he had been
demoted and his pay had been reduced as a result of alleged
performance deficiencies. The claimant contended that the
“accident” occurred when he was harassed by his
supervisors. He asserted that his depression rendered him
unable to work and forced him to seek continuing medical
attention.

Dr. Terry Davis conducted a psychiatric evaluation of
Worline in May 2004 and opined that he suffered from
conversion disorder. Davis did not believe the disorder was
caused by the work accident and injuries. Although Alstom
Power points to evidence that Worline’s psychological
difficulties were not caused by the accident, the trial
court was entitled to accept the opinions of certain
experts over others. The record presented conflicting
medical testimony, and we will not substitute our judgment
for that of the compensation court. We conclude that the
record presents sufficient evidence to permit the trial
court to find that Worline’s psychological injuries
resulted from the work-related accident. The court did not
err in finding that Worline needed counseling for anger and
frustration.

MAXIMUM MEDICAL IMPROVEMENT

The trial court found that until Worline received the
recommended counseling, he would not reach maximum medical
improvement, and that Worline should receive compensation.
Worline’s average weekly wage entitled him to temporary
total disability benefits of $487 per week.

[10] The date of maximum medical improvement for purposes
of ending a workers’ compensation claimant’s temporary
disability is the date upon which the claimant has attained
maximum medical recovery from all of the injuries sustained
in a particular compensable accident. Rodriguez v.
Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757, 707 N.W.2d 232 (2005).
Alstom Power argues that the trial court erred in awarding
temporary total disability benefits because Worline’s anger
and frustration were not causally related to his November
2000 accident. Having determined that the compensation
court did not err in finding that Worline’s anger and
frustration were causally related to the accident, we also
conclude that the court did not err in finding that Worline
had not yet reached maximum medical improvement.

CONCLUSION

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to
Worline, is sufficient to support the findings of fact and
the award made by the trial court, which determinations
were affirmed by the review panel. The judgment and award
of the Workers’ Compensation Court are therefore affirmed.
An award of attorney fees in accordance with Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 48-125 (Cum. Supp. 2006) will be considered
upon a motion and supporting affidavit filed consistent
with Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9F (rev. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

HEAVICAN, C.J., not participating.