Summary 2010 WY 156

Summary of Decision

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Camilleri v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Worker’s Safety and Compensation Division.

Citation: 2010 WY 156

Docket Number: S-09-0242

URL: http://tinyurl.com/364abop

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, The Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristen J. Hanna, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: December 2, 2010

Facts: Appellant was employed as a licensed practical nurse, and her co-employee was the cook there. In a nutshell, Appellant claimed that her co-employee ran into her, perhaps deliberately, left-shoulder to left-shoulder, in a narrow hallway at their workplace.

Although Appellant had some predisposing bodily infirmities, she asserted the shoulder blow delivered by her co-employee was forceful enough to cause the immediate onset of pain to her left shoulder and her neck. At the hearing, Appellant’s claims were that she was entitled to temporary total disability payments during the time she was unable to work because of the continued problems she had with her left shoulder. Throughout the early months of her treatment, Appellant’s medical care providers were unable to ascertain the cause of the pain in her shoulder and most of them perceived that Appellant displayed a sense of pain that was not consistent with her claimed injury.

Appellant received benefits from the date of injury until the Division informed Appellant that it would not approve further payment of benefits. Appellant, through her appointed attorney, indicated that the matter should be assigned to the Medical Commission.

The Commission determined that Appellant was not entitled to further benefits, that she was at an ascertainable loss, that her attorney was relieved from any obligation to further represent her, and that the matter was remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) to carry out the mandates of the Commission’s decision.

Issues: Whether the Hearing Panel’s decision denying ongoing medical treatment to Appellant and determination that she was at ascertainable loss or maximum medical improvement was supported by substantial evidence. Whether the Hearing Panel’s decision denying ongoing medical treatment to Appellant and determination that she was at ascertainable loss or maximum medical improvement was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with Wyoming law.

Holdings:

Appellant’s challenge to the Commission’s decision was that its decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record. Of great importance to that argument, was her contention that the Commission credited the testimony of all witnesses for the Division, but found that Appellant’s witnesses were pretty much across the board not credible.

The Court concluded that some of the Commission’s credibility determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Court found that the testimony of Appellant’s supervisor and treating physician were credible. However, after careful review, the Court held that the record contained substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision to reject much of the testimony/evidence offered by Appellant herself, and that the decision was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole. Thus, while the Court was greatly concerned that the Commission’s analysis of the testimonial and documentary evidence was seriously flawed, the Court concluded that the Commission’s decision should be affirmed.

J. HILL delivered the opinion of the Court

The concurrence disagreed with the majority regarding the function of the Court to reweigh the Commission’s credibility determinations. It was noted that this was a medically contested case heard by a panel of the Medical Commission. The panel members in this case included three physicians, two of whom were board certified. The Medical Commission is not obligated to accept the findings of a medical expert if, in their expertise, the Commission determines that the factual basis for the medical opinion is not credible or reliable. The findings of the Commission in this case demonstrate that it did not ignore the treating physician’s testimony. It fully considered his testimony, but found his opinion was not credible. The Commission’s findings were not clearly erroneous and were supported by substantial evidence.

J. BURKE, filed a special concurrence, with whom J. VOIGT joined.