Summary 2010 WY 39

Summary of Decision issued April 1, 2010

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

Case Name: Alphin v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2010 WY 39

Docket Number: S-09-0085

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County, the Honorable Marv Tyler, Judge.

Representing Appellant Alphin: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: Alphin challenged the order of the district court which affirmed the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order” issued by a hearing examiner for the OAH. Alphin was injured on the job in 2005. His employer, Black Horse Construction, Inc. convinced him to seek medical treatment outside the constraints of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer paid for his treatment for a short time, but fired him because he was unable to work and then discontinued making payments on his behalf. In mid-2006, Alphin filed a claim for benefits.

Substantial evidence test: The hearing examiner’s credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record. Alphin testified in person and contradicted his own testimony several times.
Burden of proof: Alphin had the burden of proof. He asserted he did not hurt his back until the time he went to work for Black Horse Construction but the medical evidence was not entirely consistent with his claims. Alphin argued that the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached given the record was that a blow from a backhoe such as the one he suffered required that the fact-finder accept as a given that Alphin must have suffered the sort of back injury he claims to have sustained. The Court stated its inquiry revealed that the facts and circumstances of the instant case do not merit bringing “res ipsa loquitor” to bear.
Arbitrary and capricious standard: Alphin contended that his ability to successfully prosecute his claim for worker’s compensation benefits was so hampered by his side deal with Black Horse and his subsequent inability to get timely medical attention for his back problems, that the Court should apply the arbitrary and capricious safety net described in Dale. The Court concluded that Alphin’s circumstances were not ones that called into play that safety net.

Conclusion: The Court stated there was substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision to reject the evidence offered by Alphin after considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole. The Court concluded that the circumstances in the instant case did not call the Dale “safety net” into play.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yaq4yhc .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]