Summary 2005 WY 155

Summary of Decision issued December 2, 2005

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Tarraferro v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Medical Commission & Wyoming Worker’s Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2005 WY 155

Docket Number: 05-53

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable E. James Burke, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Bill G. Hibbler, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Steve Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and J.C. DeMers, Special Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. DeMers.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2005

Issues: Whether Appellant was aggrieved or adversely affected by the Commission’s decision. Whether the Medical Commission’s decision was based on competent evidence.

Holdings: Review of administrative hearings is limited to a determination of factors as specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, appellate review is limited to the application of the substantial evidence test. The Court reviews the entire record when making its ultimate determination on appeal. All parties agreed that the sole issue at the hearing was whether the employee claimant’s use of Marinol was necessary and reasonable.
Appellant had received benefits for 22 months of the Marinol prescription (for pain management) when the Commission determined that they would pay for the immediate prescription but any future benefits in this regard would be denied. The Court reasoned that issuing conclusions such as those at issue in the instant case, the Division and the Commission could introduce delay in the final resolution of worker’s compensation claims for years at a time. The Court considered the issues because otherwise it would operate as a hardship to the claimant as well as similarly situated future claimants.
The essence of the Medical Commission’s findings was that Marinol was not reasonable and necessary, was contraindicated in Appellant’s case, and that it was experimental. The Commission relied upon the PDR and Medline®. The Appellant was not given notice of that independent research. The Court reviewed the evidence properly of record and found it supported only one conclusion: That Marinol was a reasonable and necessary, non-experimental treatment for Appellant’s pain.

The order of the district court affirming the Medical Commission’s decision was reversed and remanded to the Commission with directions that it void its decision to deny Appellant his prescription and enter an order to the opposite effect.

C.J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.