Summary 2006 WY 63

[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: State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Madeley

Citation: 2006 WY 63

Docket Number: 05-167

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Employee/Claimant/Petitioner): Christopher S. Leigh, Jackson, Wyoming

Date of Decision: May 19, 2006

Issues: Whether the hearing examiner's decision that Appellee failed to prove he is entitled to permanent partial disability benefits was arbitrary or capricious. Whether the hearing examiner's decision that Appellee's loss of earning capacity is attributable to a non-work related cardiac condition, and also due to economic factors, is in accordance with law.

Holdings: The Order denying benefits is facially insufficient to permit appellate review. A hearing officer must do more than state an ultimate fact or conclusion; he must thoroughly explain each ultimate fact or conclusion in order for an appellate court to determine upon what basis each ultimate fact or conclusion was reached. In the instant case, the hearing officer failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to why he denied benefits. Therefore, the hearing officer's findings of facts and conclusions are wholly inadequate to permit effective appellate review of the Order denying benefits. The district court had before it insufficient information by which it could review the merits of the hearing officer's determination and, consequently, its decision is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with directions to vacate the Order denying Appellee benefits for partial permanent disability. The district court is directed to remand the case for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law or other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

J. Hill filed a dissenting opinion. The findings made by the hearing examiner are, in some respects, in error but are sufficient given the record in this case. The district court was correct in reversing the hearing examiner's order and directing that the Division award benefits. It is the appellant's burden to bring a complete record to this Court. Where a proper record is not provided, an appeal may be dismissed or review may be limited to those issues not requiring inspection of the record. Although that rule is more often applied in appeals coming directly to this Court from a trial court, there is no reason that it should not apply equally in these circumstances where the appeal comes to us from a district court sitting as an intermediate court of appeals. The entire record was before the district court for its consideration. However, when the Division filed its designation of record in this case, it chose to designate mainly those portions of the record which were favorable to its position in this appeal. Resolution of the issues raised in this appeal requires that we have before us the complete agency record. For this reason, the district court's order should be summarily affirmed.