Summary 2006 WY 29

Summary of Decision issued March 16, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion 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: Workers’ Compensation Claim of: Olivas v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2006 WY 29

Docket Number: 05-79

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): David M. Gosar of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Michael N. Thatcher, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Thatcher.

Date of Decision: March 16, 2006

Issue: Whether the hearing examiner’s conclusion that Appellant had failed to prove that he had “actively sought suitable work” as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(iii) was supported by substantial evidence.

Holding: In a contested case hearing, the burden of proving all the essential elements of a claim for workers’ compensation benefits rests upon the claimant. The Court reviewed the case as if it had come directly from the administrative agency. When both parties present evidence in a contested case proceeding and factual findings are made, the appropriate standard of review is the substantial evidence test. The burden was on Appellant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he actively sought suitable work considering his health, education, training, and experience. The Court reviewed the record and stated that the hearing examiner’s conclusions were inadequate. The examiner failed to completely analyze whether Appellant was “actively seeking work” as that phrase was defined in the Division’s Rules and Regulations. The hearing examiner’s only stated reason for denying benefits was that Appellant’s six applications for employment in the two years since his work-related injury did not constitute “a systematic sustained work effort”. However, the hearing examiner failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions related to the other alternatives provided under the rule. That failure rendered his order denying benefits inadequate. The Court’s ability to review the hearing examiner’s decision was compromised by the failure to make findings of fact and conclusions regarding all the material evidence offered by Appellant. The hearing examiner made no findings or conclusions regarding Appellant’s credibility as a witness. The failure to set out why Appellant was or was not a credible witness inhibited the Court’s ability to properly perform their review.

The Court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to vacate the order denying benefits and remand to the Office of Administrative Hearings for further findings consistent with the opinion.

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

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/n4ec3 .