She further specifically swore that neither the employer nor the carrier of its workmen's compensation insurance referred the employee to her for psychological counseling. In workmen's compensation cases our factual scope of review is limited strictly to an examination of the trial evidence to determine if any legal evidence was supportive of the trial court's findings, and, if such evidence existed, we must affirm the trial court's judgment without any attempt on our behalf to weigh it. Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). If it is established by legal evidence that an employee has suffered a physical injury or trauma in the line and scope of his employment and he develops a neurosis as a proximate result of such injury or trauma which causes or contributes to an occupational or physical disability, such disability is compensable; and the employer must pay the actual cost of reasonable, necessary psychiatric treatment. Fruehauf Corp. v. Prater, 360 So.2d 999 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1003 (Ala. 1978).
The trial court is not bound by expert testimony but must consider all of the evidence, including its own observations, and interpret it to its own best judgment. Genpak Corporation v. Gibson, 534 So.2d 312 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). On appellate review, we do not consider the weight of the evidence.
The only mention of "mental" is in the last sentence, where it refers to what kind of mental injuries are not compensable. The converse of this negative reference is that mental injuries that have been produced and proximately caused by some physical injury to the body are compensable. See Fruehauf Corp. v. Prater, 360 So.2d 999, 1001 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978); Allen v. Diversified Prods., 453 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). See also 3 Lex K. Larson, Larson's Worker's Compensation Law § 56.03[1] (2008) ("[W]hen there has been a physical accident or trauma, and claimant's disability is increased or prolonged by traumatic neurosis, conversion hysteria, or hysterical paralysis, it is now uniformly held that the full disability including the effects of the neurosis is compensable.").
"`The trial court is not bound by expert testimony, but, having observed the claimant and having heard his testimony, it is able to exercise its own judgment in reaching its conclusions. See Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). Further, in arriving at its judgment, the trial court may consider all the evidence before it, as well as its own observations.
Except in an emergency care situation, the employer has the first right to select the treating physician, and the employer will not be held liable for treatment obtained by the employee without justification or notice to the employer. Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). I would grant the petition, so that we could examine the record to determine whether the trial court was correct in ordering Lee to pay for the medical expenses resulting from the treatment by an unauthorized doctor.
“This court has consistently construed the language of [§ 25–5–77(a), Ala.Code 1975,] to mean that the employer is not liable for medical or surgical treatment ... obtained by the employee without justification or notice to the employer. Alverson v. Fontaine Fifth Wheel Co., 586 So.2d 216, 217 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); Genpak Corp. v. Gibson, 534 So.2d 312, 313 (Ala.Civ.App.1988); Kimberly–Clark Corp. v. Golden, 486 So.2d 435, 437 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); and Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). In some situations an employee may be justified in failing to obtain authorization from his employer before incurring medical expenses, as when (1) the employer has neglected or refused to provide the necessary medical care; (2) where notice of, and a request for, alternative care would be futile; and (3) where other circumstances exist that justify the employee's selection of alternative care. Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Walley, 541 So.2d 560, 561 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); and Kimberly–Clark Corp. v. Golden, 486 So.2d 435, 437 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).
This court has consistently construed the language of this statute to mean that the employer is not liable for medical or surgical treatment, or in this case psychotherapy, obtained by the employee without justification or notice to the employer. Alverson v. Fontaine Fifth Wheel Co., 586 So.2d 216, 217 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991); Genpak Corp. v. Gibson, 534 So.2d 312, 313 (Ala.Civ.App. 1988); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Golden, 486 So.2d 435, 437 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986); and Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). In some situations an employee may be justified in failing to obtain authorization from his employer before incurring medical expenses, as when (1) the employer has neglected or refused to provide the necessary medical care; (2) where notice of, and a request for, alternative care would be futile; and (3) where other circumstances exist that justify the employee's selection of alternative care. Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. Walley, 541 So.2d 560, 561 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); and Kimberly-Clark Corp., 486 So.2d 435, 437 (Ala.Civ.App. 1986).
"The trial court is not bound by expert testimony, but, having observed the claimant and having heard his testimony, it is able to exercise its own judgment in reaching its conclusions. See Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). Further, in arriving at its judgment, the trial court may consider all the evidence before it, as well as its own observations.
The trial court may consider all evidence, including its own observations, and interpret that evidence according to its best judgment. Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). Our standard of review as to factual findings in this matter is limited to determining whether any legal evidence exists to support the court's findings.
The trial court is not bound by expert testimony, but, having observed the claimant and having heard his testimony, it is able to exercise its own judgment in reaching its conclusions. See Allen v. Diversified Products, 453 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984). Further, in arriving at its judgment, the trial court may consider all the evidence before it, as well as its own observations.