Ge Vue v. Walmart Associates, INC., and New Hampshire Insurance Company

Summary

The court reversed the Commission because Walmart failed to rebut the presumption that Vue remained disabled by his work-related psychological condition and because the challenged controversions were frivolous under the applicable statutory and administrative standards. The court held that a physical-mental claim is analyzed under the ordinary presumption framework, that rebuttal must address all disabling conditions and relevant periods, and that an insurer has a continuing duty to modify or withdraw a controversion when later evidence undermines it. The court also held that the Commission improperly added subjective bad faith as an element and that Walmart's medical-benefit and temporary-total-disability controversions lacked adequate evidentiary or statutory support.