Summary 2007 WY 101

Summary of Decision issued June 21, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and 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 note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Wright v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2007 WY 101

Docket Number: 06-223

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Barbara A. Baker, Sheridan, Wyoming.

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

Issue: Whether the decision of the OAH denying worker’s compensation benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion given that the Claimant met her evidentiary burden of proof establishing that her attendance at the December 18, 2004, fundraising event was within the court and scope of her employment.

Facts/Discussion: Wright appeals a district court order affirming the OAH’s denial of her claim for worker’s compensation benefits on the grounds that she failed to carry her burden of establishing a compensable injury. Wright worked at the Absaroka Head Start and attended a skating fund-raiser event at the direction of a teacher. She fell and broke her leg while skating at the event.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews an administrative agency order as if it came directly from the agency affording no special deference to the district court’s decision. Although Wright phrased her issue in terms of an arbitrary and capricious standard, the standard of review in appeals where both parties to a contested case submitted evidence, is the substantial evidence test.
The Court discussed Cronk v. City of Cody, DeWall v. State, and Hepp v. State. Those cases help answer the question of whether the employee was in a place her employer required her to be and whether the employee was engaging in an activity which her employer required as a condition of employment. The Court reviewed the record and found ample evidence to support the hearing examiner’s findings. All objective evidence established that Wright was not in a place or involved in an activity required by Absaroka as a condition of her employment.

Holding: The decision of the hearing examiner was supported by substantial evidence. Wright was not required to attend the fund-raiser as a condition of her employment. The district court’s order upholding the hearing examiner’s denial of benefits was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yvl5gx .