Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp.
291 Neb. 757
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Kimberly Hynes, a registered nurse in Good Samaritan Hospital’s mental‑health unit, experienced three patient assaults in 2008 (April 16: whipped with a vacuum cord and punched; May/June: bitten and kicked; July: grabbed with aggressive sexual comments).
- Hynes developed acute psychiatric symptoms after the April assault and was hospitalized multiple times for major depressive disorder and PTSD; she received extensive psychiatric treatment including electroconvulsive therapy and claimed total disability from July 2008 onward.
- Good Samaritan conceded the April 16 assault caused a compensable physical injury but disputed (a) that the second and third incidents produced physical injuries and (b) medical causation linking the workplace events to Hynes’ lasting psychiatric disability.
- Hynes’ expert psychiatrist, Dr. Paula Malin, opined the assaults caused cumulative trauma and rendered Hynes unable to work; employer experts disputed foundation and causation and the court‑appointed expert questioned the PTSD diagnosis.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court credited Hynes and Malin, found the April assault compensable and the later incidents aggravated the initial injury in a continuous chain, and awarded temporary and permanent total disability benefits; the award was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation of expert opinion | Malin relied on in‑person exam and records; opinion reliable | Malin lacked necessary facts (undisclosed past trauma, inconsistencies); opinions should be excluded | Court: Malin had sufficient foundation from evaluation and record review; admissible; weight for trier of fact |
| Compensability of second incident | Second incident caused physical injury (bite/bruising) and psychological harm | No medical evidence of physical injury for second incident; not compensable | Court: testimony and counselor notes established physical injury (bruising); compensable/aggravating |
| Use of non‑independently compensable incidents in causation | All three incidents can combine to produce cumulative psychiatric injury | Only compensable incidents should be considered; third incident not independently compensable so irrelevant | Court: initial compensable injury plus subsequent incidents may form one continuous chain; later incidents can aggravate and are relevant |
| Sufficiency of evidence for psychiatric causation and disability | Medical records, hospitalizations, Malin’s opinion establish PTSD/MDD and inability to work | Employer experts disagreed; argued preexisting trauma and lack of life‑threatening event | Court: record supports causation and disability; Malin credited; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagemann v. Nebraska Methodist Hosp., 277 Neb. 335 (discussing appellate standard for Workers’ Compensation Court review)
- Olivotto v. DeMarco Bros. Co., 273 Neb. 672 (trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings; review for abuse of discretion)
- Zach v. Nebraska State Patrol, 273 Neb. 1 (psychological injury must be related to physical injury to be compensable)
- Sweeney v. Kerstens & Lee, Inc., 268 Neb. 752 (litigation stress as intervening cause breaking causal link to original accident)
- Stacy v. Great Lakes Agri Mktg., 276 Neb. 236 (successive events in one continuous chain can be proximate cause and compensable)