Instead, the only medical testimony was that the fear was reasonable and natural, considering the repeated injuries to the arm and the medical advice not to return to work because of the substantial risk of reinjury. There was no medical testimony or other evidence that petitioner's fear is an abnormal mental, emotional, psychotic or neurotic injury, illness, or condition. A.R.S. § 23-901(10); see, e.g., Industrial Commission v. Saffeels, 150 Colo. 41, 371 P.2d 438 (1962); 1B. A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 42.22 at 7-597 (1980). Cf. Higgins v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz. App. 136, 491 P.2d 1138 (1971) (in which medical testimony failed to establish psychiatric impairment in addition to physical disability).