An Oklahoma Court of Appeals sustained a three judge panel of Workers Compensation Court's decision to vacate an award for psychological overlay made by the trial court The appeals court held, among other things that the panel is not required to specifically state how the trial judge's decision goes against the weight of the evidence.

Claimant Tern Davis suffered a leg injury arising out of her employment with Medical Arts Laboratory in Oklahoma City. On April 19,1995,the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building caused various pieces of large furniture to hit her and throw her on the floor. This injury necessitated surgery followed by physical therapy. In addition, she also received counseling and psychiatric treatment.

In a Worker's Compensation proceeding against Medical Arts Laboratory, the trial court found that Ms. Davis suffered permanent partial physical disability resulting from psychological overlay. Medical Arts Laboratory appealed this decision to a three judge panel of Worker's Compensation Court on the issue of the psychological overlay finding. The panel, after hearing oral argument, deemed that the trial court's decision went against the weight of the evidence and vacated this award.

Ms. Davis appealed this ruling alleging that the panel failed to specify why the trial judge's order went against the weight of the evidence.

The Appeals Court ruled that evidence in psychiatric reports submitted to the Trial Court indicated that Ms. Davis' psychological condition was preexisting and not due to the bombing. More importantly, the Appeals Court deemed it was not obliged to even reach this issue for review as: (1) The three judge panel is not required to specifically state how the trial judge's decision went against the weight of the evidence and (2) once a decision has been vacated by the panel, such decision is beyond the scope of a review.