Summary 2006 WY 46

Summary of Decision issued April 18, 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: Finley v. State of Wyoming, ex. rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2006 WY 46

Docket Number: 05-101

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

Representing Appellant (Petitioner/Employee-Claimant): Dion J. Custis, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: April 18, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in determining that Mr. Finley was not eligible for permanent partial disability benefits, and past and future medical expenses pursuant to § 27-14-405 and § 27-14-401, because he has not met his burden of proof to show that treatment was the result of his work-related injury.


Holdings: An employee-claimant in a worker’s compensation case has the burden to prove all the statutory elements which comprise a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes establishing the cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed and proving that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. An injury arises “out of the employment” when a causal connection exists between the injury and the conditions under which the work is required to be performed. An injury is not compensable if it cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing cause and if it comes from a hazard that the employee would have been equally exposed to outside of the employment. In the present action, Appellant’s case that he suffered a compensable injury rests entirely upon the fact that the injury occurred while he was at work. Presence on an employer’s premises is insufficient by itself to establish the requisite nexus between the injury and employment. A causal nexus between an employee’s injury and his employment should not be conclusively established based solely upon the fact that the injury occurred on the employer’s premises. The sum total of Appellant’s evidence is that he was at work, suffered some sort of seizure or blackout, and fell striking his head on the ground. He makes no argument, and a review of the record discloses no evidence, that any condition of his employment was the cause of his injury. In the absence of such evidence, Appellant has failed to establish that his injury “arose out of” his employment. Accordingly, the hearing examiner correctly concluded that Appellant had failed to carry his burden and establish that he suffered a compensable injury.

The district court order affirming the hearing examiner’s denial of benefits is affirmed.


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