Summary 2006 WY 54

Summary of Decision issued May 4, 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. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: In the Matter of Worker’s Compensation Claim of Bobby Joe Pickens: State, ex rel, Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division v. Pickens

Citation: 2006 WY 54

Docket Number: 05-162

Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County, the Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Edward G. Luhm of Scott, Shelledy and Luhm, PC, Worland, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 4, 2006

Issue: Whether the Medical Commission erred when it found that the claimant did not qualify for permanent total disability benefits under the odd lot doctrine.

Holding: In September 1990, claimant was injured at work when a loader he was operating slid down a ramp and collided with a pile of material at the base of the ramp. He did not report the injury to the Division. In September 1991, claimant was injured when another employee struck him from behind hard enough “to be knocked off balance”. This injury was reported. He was assigned a 9% permanent whole body impairment based on loss of motion as well as a 36% loss of earnings award. From 1992 until claimant filed the instant claim, he was examined by a variety of doctors and rehab specialists who attributed his symptoms to various disorders. The claimant’s application for permanent total disability was denied by the Division on July 3, 2002. Claimant later argued before the Commission that he qualified for permanent total disability under the odd lot doctrine and was denied.
The Court reviews administrative action as if the appeal had come directly from the administrative agency. The claimant in a workers’ compensation case bears the burden of proving each element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. When both parties admit evidence, the Court applies the substantial evidence test. Further, the Court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard of review as a “safety net” to catch agency actions that violate the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
Under the odd lot doctrine, a claimant who is not actually permanently totally disabled is able to receive permanent total disability benefits because the claimant’s disability and other factors make the claimant de facto unemployable. The doctrine shifts the burden such that the claimant is required to make a prima facie showing that (1) he is no longer capable of working at the job in which he was employed at the time of the injury and (2) the degree of obvious physical impairment, coupled with other facts, such as mental capacity, education, training or age qualify him for odd lot treatment. The Court had to determine whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that subsequent injuries, medical and mental conditions caused the claimant’s inability to work or whether his current disability is work-related. Then, considering those facts, the question is whether the claimant is eligible for odd lot treatment as a matter of law. The Court reviewed the record and found that the Commission’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. The Court agreed with the Division that the Commission correctly applied the odd lot doctrine and the district court erred in reversing the Commission’s denial of benefits. The district court combined the claimant’s two burdens and found that the claimant had proven he was unable to perform his previous employment through his original workplace injury and his unrelated other injuries and medical conditions. The Court stated this was error. The Court noted that adopting the district court’s reasoning would impermissibly expand permanent total disability benefit awards under the Worker’s Compensation Act. In the context of the odd lot doctrine, a causal connection must exist between the compensable workplace injury and the claimant’s inability to work at the job in which he was employed at the time of injury. The Commission found that the claimant’s current inability to work in his previous employment is a consequence of non-work-related injuries and ailments. Because the claimant failed to meet his initial burden of proving that his work-related injury disabled him from continuing in his previous employment, his claim for benefits under the odd lot doctrine was properly denied by the Commission. The claimant failed to prove his work-related injury barred him from working in his previous employment. As a result, the Commission correctly found that he was not eligible for permanent total disability benefits under the odd lots doctrine and the district court’s reversal of the Commission was error.

The Court reversed and reinstated the Order of the Commission denying benefits.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/nvzp9 .