CLAIM NO. D600939
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 10, 1998
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by WM. RANDAL WRIGHT, Attorney at Law, Hope, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 1 represented by MARK T. McCARTY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by NELSON V. SHAW, Attorney at Law, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER[2] This case comes on for review before the Commission on remand from the Arkansas Court of Appeals. [3] In an opinion dated July 24, 1997, the Commission found that claimant was entitled to benefits for his bipolar disorder. We stated that:
[4] In an opinion delivered May 6, 1998, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded after stating the following:Obviously, claimant’s bipolar disorder was diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist. Although the psychiatrist never testified claimant’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder specifically meets the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, when we review this manual we find that the diagnosis of bipolar I disorder satisfies this statutory requirement.
Appellant (respondent) argues that since there was no testimony as to whether the diagnosis meets the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMD), the Commission conducted an extrajudicial review of documentation not introduced into evidence. We agree.
* * *
[5] Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-113(a)(2) (Repl. 1996) provides the following:The Commission’s de novo review is confined to the record established by the ALJ. The extrajudicial review of documentation not introduced into evidence was an error. We reverse and remand for further findings.
[6] Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(2) (Repl. 1996), the ALJ, the Commission and any reviewing court must construe the provisions of the workers’ compensation statutes strictly. In our opinion, section 113 requires only that a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist render a diagnosis and that the diagnosis satisfy the criteria set forth in the DSM. While evidence by a psychiatrist or psychologist indicating that the criteria has or has not, been met is certainly preferable, there is nothing in the statute that requires such evidence in every case. [7] Accordingly, we hereby remand this matter to the Administrative Law Judge to supplement the record with the pertinent sections of the DSM and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. [8] IT IS SO ORDERED.No mental injury or illness under this section shall be compensable unless it is also diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and unless the diagnosis of the condition meets the criteria established in the most current issue of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman PAT WEST HUMPHREY, Commissioner
[9] MIKE WILSON, Commissioner