With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is evidence, which did not exist in Mr. Herrera’s case, that a licensed psychiatrist or clinical psychologist diagnosed such injuries. In the absence of a mental health diagnosis, the Division contends Mr. Herrera had the burden of proving Lexapro was for treatment of physical injuries which, the Division asserts, he failed to do because he did not present medical evidence supporting his testimony. [¶ 13] Section 27~14-102(a)(xi)(J) excludes from coverage any mental injury unless it is caused by a compensable physical injury, it occurs subsequent or simultaneously with the physical injury and it is established by clear and convincing evidence. We addressed this exclusion in Brierley v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Comp. Div., 2002 WY 121, ¶ 17, 52 P.3d 564, 571 (Wyo.2002) (<HOLDING>); Sechrist v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’

A: holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence
B: holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied
C: holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later
D: holding clear and convincing evidence established that the claimants attempted suicide was the result of a mental injury suffered subsequent to a compensable injury
D.