Summary 2009 WY 110

Summary of Decision issued September 3, 2009

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

Case Name: State v. Kaczmarek

Citation: 2009 WY 110

Docket Number: S-08-0208; S-08-0209

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

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

Representing Appellant Canon Oil: Clark D. Stith and Melissa J. Lyon of Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Representing Kaczmarek: James R. Salisbury of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Kaczmarek applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to his back surgery in 2006 claiming that the surgery was related to injuries sustained in a 1979 work-related accident.

Proper burden of proof: In a second compensable injury case, the claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it was more probable than not that there existed a causal connection between the first and second injuries. The hearing examiner explicitly acknowledged the stricter burden of proof in § 27-14-605 and that Kaczmarek was only required to show the causal connection to a reasonable degree of medical probability rather than that the second injury was due “solely” to the original compensable injury.

Against the great weight of evidence: Kaczmarek relied on expert testimony from two physicians. The testimony did not establish that it was more probable than not that the first injury was causally related to the second injury. The hearing examiner concluded that there was no competent medical evidence which demonstrated that Kaczmarek’s current chronic low back pain and herniated disc were directly related to the 1979 work injury. Without some evidence or testimony showing it was more probable than not that the second injury was caused by the first, the claimant could not satisfy his burden of proof.

Conclusion: The Court found as a matter of law that the hearing examiner used the proper burden of proof when deciding whether Kaczmarek was entitled to benefits under the second compensable injury rule. Also, the Court held that the hearing examiner’s conclusion that Kaczmarek was unable to prove that his 2006 condition was related to the 1979 injury was supported by substantial evidence.

Reversed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/mn7yas .

[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.]