Summary 2009 WY 46

Summary of Decision issued March 31, 2009

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

Case Name: Chavez v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Comp. Div.

Citation: 2009 WY 46

Docket Number: S-08-0069

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant Chavez: Ethelyn Boak, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Chavez applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to his back surgery in 2006. He claimed the surgery was necessary because of a work-related injury he suffered in 1989.

Substantial Evidence: The parties do not dispute the connection between Chavez’s 2006 surgery and his 1991 surgery. The testifying doctors disagreed on whether the medical problems addressed by the two surgeries were caused by the workplace injury Chavez suffered in 1989. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission’s choice to accept Dr. Ruttle’s opinion over Dr. Beer’s and the Court deferred to that choice. Dr. Ruttle opined there was no causal connection between the 2006 surgery and the 1989 work-related injury and he stated that Chavez suffered from a preexisting condition making the 2006 surgery non-compensable. The findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions were sound.
Injuries which occur over a substantial period of time: Wyoming law allows for claims involving injuries that occur over a substantial period of time. Chavez claimed the Commission was required to analyze his case under § 27-14-603(a). the statute explicitly requires a claimant to prove the injury occurring over time was caused by the conditions of his work. Chavez did not present evidence to the Commission to suggest such a causal connection.
Second compensable injury rule: There was no basis on which to award benefits under the second compensable injury rule because the Commission explicitly chose to give more weight to the opinion of Dr. Ruttle who testified that Chavez’s 2006 surgery was not the result of the incident in 1989 and concluded the surgery was not compensable.

Conclusion: The testimony supported the Commission’s finding that the 2006 surgery was not causally related to the compensable work injury of 1989. Based on that finding, they concluded that the 2006 surgery was not compensable.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cw857u .

[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 in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]