Answer

Greetings.
You have asked an important question, and it touches on several broad aspects of how psychological injuries are treated (for example, the permission to desecrate the Sabbath because of danger to life from a psychological cause, that is, concern for psychological harm. There are discussions in Igrot Moshe and Hatam Sofer about sending a psychiatric patient to a hospital that treats him but feeds him forbidden foods. Is it permitted to violate a prohibition in order to heal the mind? See also Rabbi Yisraeli’s article in Techumin 1 or 2 regarding spiritual danger to life, meaning desecrating the Sabbath to save a Jew from apostasy. He cites a dispute between Tosafot and Rashba as to whether this is more severe than physical danger to life or not, and this too can be analyzed at length). I do not have time to really get into all that, so I will address it here briefly.
First, I should preface that in my opinion the physiological aspects, so long as they are not noticeable, are irrelevant to the discussion (see also Rabbi Rabinovitch’s discussion in his well-known responsum in Siach Nachum about a magnetic card that opens doors. There he points out that changes in the world that are not noticeable are not considered changes for the purposes of Sabbath labor). Therefore, if we decide that psychological injury counts as injury, that would be true even if it has no organic source, and if not, then that would remain true even if it does have such a source.
On the matter itself, in the Talmud itself we find that it is permitted to desecrate the Sabbath because of a fear reaction of a woman giving birth or a child and the like. Admittedly, there the fright can lead to danger to life. But it seems to me that in the law of an eye ailment, for which one desecrates the Sabbath, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam disagree whether this is because of the concern for death (Rabbenu Tam) or because the eye has importance like life itself (Rashi). And according to Rashi’s view, there is strong reason to say that a significant injury to the mind is certainly no less severe than blindness in one eye. And if such an injury exempts a person from commandments (as an insane person), then seemingly one desecrates the Sabbath for him so that he may keep many Sabbaths, just as one would for a dangerous bodily injury.
However, all of this is on the conceptual level. But regarding damage and tort compensation, there is room to discuss it under the law of damage that is not externally evident, because medical expenses are only indirect causation, and one is exempt from them in human courts unless the damage is evident, in which case one of the five categories paid by an assailant is medical treatment. True, when the injury is evident in the person’s behavior, that would seemingly count as evident damage, but here we return to Rabbi Rabinovitch’s reasoning above. In practical terms, though, it seems to me that nowadays such damage is certainly completely evident, and is considered ordinary damage in every respect. Just as intellectual property in software is not nowadays considered something without substance. In these matters everything depends on the culture and the norms in our surroundings. And today there is clear recognition of psychological injury as injury in every respect.
But of course these matters require much fuller and more detailed clarification.