Summary 2010 WY 103

Summary of Decision issued July 28, 2010

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

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

Citation: 2010 WY 103

Docket Number: S-09-0191

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge.

Representing Herrera: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: After sustaining a work-related injury ultimately requiring amputation of his right index finger, Herrera began taking an anti-depressant medication. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) paid for the medication for two years and then denied further payment. Herrera objected and, after a contested case hearing, the OAH awarded him benefits. The Division sought review in district court and the district court reversed the award.
Herrera contended the OAH’s determination that he was entitled to benefits was supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. He pointed to his testimony that his physician prescribed Lexapro for pain, numbness and depression. He noted that when he stopped taking the drug, his pain increased, which caused his blood pressure to rise and when he resumed taking it, those physical symptoms subsided. The Division contended the evidence showed Lexapro was prescribed to treat Herrera’s agitation, stress, anxiety and depression. The Division contended that Herrera had the burden of proving that Lexapro was for treatment of physical injuries in the absence of a mental health diagnosis. Previous cases have not required the Court to consider the question of whether substantial evidence supported the OAH’s findings and conclusions that medication prescribed for a mental injury was also prescribed to treat a claimant’s physical injury, making § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(J) inapplicable. The Court agreed with a recent Louisiana decision which held that the statute applied only when the claimant was alleged to be disabled as the result of a mental injury or illness.
The Division asserted the district court properly reversed the ruling because the OAH relied almost exclusively on Herrera’s testimony. The Court stated again that the testimony of an injured worker alone is sufficient to prove an accident if there is nothing to impeach or discredit the worker’s testimony, and the worker’s statements are corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Here, the Division presented no evidence to impeach or discredit Herrera’s testimony and his testimony was corroborated by medical records showing that he was treated with Lexapro for pain and numbness, as well as for depression.

Conclusion: There was no dispute concerning the incident that caused Herrera’s injury; therefore medical testimony was not required to establish that causal connection. The only question was whether Lexapro was prescribed solely to treat mental injuries or whether it was intended to treat Herrera’s physical injury, specifically the pain and high blood pressure caused by the pain. Through his own testimony, Herrera sufficiently established that the Lexapro treated his physical injuries.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the OAH’s order awarding benefits.

C.J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/24ezj4d .

[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.]