Summary 2007 WY 65

Summary of Decision issued April 25, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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.]

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

Case Name: WY ex rel. WY Workers’ Safety & Compensation Division v. Slaymaker

Citation: 2007 WY 65

Docket Number: 06-198

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, the Honorable Dennis Sanderson, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): David M. Gosar of Gosar Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the OAH’s decision awarding benefits for an acute injury but denying benefits for a preexisting injury was supported by substantial evidence. Whether the hearing examiner erred as a matter of law when he concluded that Slaymaker’s treating physician failed to adequately support his case.

Facts/Discussion: Slaymaker injured his back at work but the Worker’s Compensation Division denied benefits because it concluded his injuries were pre-existing. After a contested case hearing, the OAH granted benefits for a torn muscle and ligament damage but denied benefits for his pre-existing bulging discs, annular tears and facet arthropathy. The district court reversed the OAH decision concluding Slaymaker had proven his pre-existing condition was materially aggravated by the work-related accident.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews the case as though it had come directly from the administrative agency. Where both parties have presented evidence, the Court applies the substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s findings of fact. When the agency has concluded the claimant has not met his burden of proof, the Court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The Court reviews an agency’s conclusions of law de novo.
A worker’s compensation claimant has the burden of proving all of the essential elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. If an employee suffers from a pre-existing condition, that employee may still recover if his employment substantially or materially aggravated his condition. In Boyce v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. the Court described the proof required to show a work-related aggravation of a preexisting condition.
There was no question Slaymaker suffered from a pre-existing condition. The hearing examiner’s findings of facts described his history of low back problems. The hearing examiner ruled the opinion expressed by Dr. Gardner did not establish Slaymaker had suffered a compensable aggravation of his pre-existing lower back condition. After the Court reviewed the record, they concluded the hearing examiner’s findings did not accurately reflect Dr. Gardner’s opinions because he specifically stated he disagreed with the Division’s conclusion the accident did not materially aggravate the pre-existing condition. Dr. Gardner was the only medical expert to offer an opinion on the causation of the current back problems and there was no evidence to discredit his opinion. The Court noted the similarities between the instant case and Salas. The Court stated that Romero v. Davy McKee Corp. and Lindbloom v. Teton Int’l did not apply to the instant case.

Holding: The record clearly established that Slaymaker suffered a material aggravation of his pre-existing lower back condition and the hearing examiner’s conclusion to the contrary was not supported by substantial evidence. To the extent the hearing examiner ruled that Slaymaker failed to meet his burden of proving his pre-existing condition was materially aggravated by the May 2003 accident, that ruling was arbitrary and capricious. The district court’s decision reversing the hearing examiner’s order denying Slaymaker benefits for aggravation of his pre-existing lower back condition was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/24bhaw .