Summary 2007 WY 31

Summary of Decision issued February 22, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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 with a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division; and FMC Corp. v. Faulkner

Citation: 2007 WY 31

Docket Number: 06-22

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioner/Employer): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Brandon W. Snyder and Thomas A. Thompson, of MacPherson, Kelly & Thompson, LLC, Rawlins, Wyoming; George Lemich of Lemich Law Center, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Michael D. Newman, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the Medical Commission erred as a matter of law in failing to allow apportionment of the employee-claimant’s impairment award between his non-work related condition and his compensable work related injury.

Facts/Discussion: The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) and FMC Corporation (FMC) challenge the Medical Commission’s permanent partial impairment rating awarded to Faulkner.
Standard of Review: The Court is limited to a determination of the factors specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act are questions of law over which the Court’s review authority is plenary. The Court reviews the case as if it had come directly to the Court from the agency and do not afford any deference to the district corut’s decision.
It was undisputed that Faulkner was injured in the course of his employment and that the injury materially aggravated a pre-existing condition. Although Faulkner had prior surgery involving his lower back, at the time of the incident he was employed on a full-time basis with no medical or physical restriction impacting his employment. He had previously received worker’s compensation benefits for injuries involving his lower back but there was no indication in the record that he had received an impairment rating or a permanent disability award. The Division and FMC contended that Faulkner’s impairment rating should be reduced by the percentage of impairment attributable to his pre-existing back condition. The Division declined to reduce the impairment rating.
The instant case is one of first impression for the Court. The general consensus from other state courts that have addressed the issue is that the employer becomes liable for the entire disability resulting from a compensable accident unless statutory authority exists to the contrary (the full-responsibility rule.) States wishing to combat any perceived inequities in application of the general rule have either enacted apportionment statutes or statutorily created second injury funds.
The Division and FMC claim apportionment is proper under Wyoming law because of the language contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(g). Appellants state the statutory language requires use of the AMA Guides and that the guides provide for apportionment. The Court disagreed and stated that apportionment is not required by the AMA Guides. There was nothing in the language cited by Appellants that would lead the Court to the conclusion that apportionment was mandated by the Guides. Other provisions of the Guides make it clear that the decision to require or allow apportionment must be made by each state.
The Division and FMC claimed that even if apportionment is not expressly authorized by the statute, the Court must permit apportionment to give effect to the intent of the Act, which allows compensation solely for work-related injuries. Appellants cited Haynes v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div. and Taylor v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. as support. The Court distinguished the Haynes case from the instant case stating the Division specifically found that Faulkner’s back condition and impairment were aggravated by the work injury. The Court distinguished the instant case from Taylor. Faulkner had not received an impairment rating prior to the December 2000 work-related injury. There was no evidence that Faulkner was receiving a double recovery.

Holding: The Court found no error in the Division’s decision. The Wyoming legislature has not enacted a statute that requires apportionment of an impairment rating due to a pre-existing condition. The Court’s decision is consistent with the case law recognizing that material aggravation of a pre-existing condition is a compensable injury and is also in accord with the general rule disallowing apportionment in the absence of a specific statute requiring apportionment.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/34jvgv .