Summary 2009 WY 47

Summary of Decision issued April 2, 2009

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

Case Name: Robinson v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2009 WY 47

Docket Number: S-07-0277

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant Robinson: Megan Overmann Goetz of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: Robinson worked as a pipe-fitter and welder for 25 years. He developed respiratory problems that he relates to his occupation. He sought medical benefits from the Division who determined that Robinson did not suffer from a work-related injury and denied benefits. Robinson visited his primary physician, Dr. Palmer, who referred him to a pulmonologist, Dr. Laura Brausch, who suggested he visit Dr. Cecile Rose at the National Jewish Hospital. The hearing officer was presented with all the medical records from the doctors.

Evidentiary issues: The Court noted that the decision essentially came down to a determination of whether to accept Dr. Brausch’s opinion or Dr. Rose’s opinion. Robinson argued that the hearing officer was unjustified in relying on Dr. Rose’s medical opinion. The Court stated the evidence against Dr. Rose’s opinion was not overwhelming. Robinson’s testimony in conjunction with Dr. Brausch’s testimony and records did not amount to overwhelming evidence in contradiction of Dr. Rose’s opinion.
Arbitrariness: The injury claimed by Robinson was a work-related lung disease. Dr. Rose refuted he had such a disease. Because the hearing officer accepted Dr. Rose’s opinion, there was no need to go any further in consideration of factors in § 27-14-603(a). The Court reviewed the order and the record and stated that although the hearing officer could have been clearer about why he believed Dr. Rose to be more persuasive than Dr. Brausch, the order was complete enough to assure that he had engaged in a reasoned analysis.
Otherwise not in accordance with law: Robinson proceeded on one theory – that he suffered an injury occurring over a substantial period of time. There was nothing in the argument that could be considered as properly alerting the hearing officer that he intended to proceed under any other alternate theory. The hearing officer did not err when he did not consider alternate theories of recovery on Robinson’s behalf.

Conclusion: The OAH decision denying benefits to Robinson was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Rose took into account all relevant information in reaching her opinion that Robinson did not, to a degree of medical probability, suffer from a work-related lung disease. The decision and order are not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with law.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/c3wqae .

[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.]