Summary 2010 WY 166

Summary of Decision December 17, 2010

[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: Johnson v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2010 WY 166

Docket Number: S-10-0098

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2c24njt

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Kenneth DeCock of Plains Law Offices, Gillette, Wyoming.

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

Date of Decision: December 17, 2010

Facts: Appellant challenges a Medical Commission decision denying her preauthorization for shoulder surgery, after the Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Compensation Division (Division) granted her benefits for both shoulders.

Issues: Whether the Medical Commission had jurisdiction to address the issue of the compensability of the original injury after the employer and the Division agreed the injury was compensable and the Division paid benefits toward the injury.


Holdings: Each of Appellant’s claims are independent of each other, regardless of whether her case remains open with the Division. Receiving a prior award of benefits for her right shoulder did not guarantee Appellant future benefits for her left shoulder. Whenever there is an application for new benefits, the Division may require the claimant to illustrate that the injury was work-related. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Medical Commission lacked jurisdiction over the question of whether she sustained a work-related injury, the actual determination made by the Medical Commission was whether or not her shoulder surgery should be covered. Because Appellant did not show her left shoulder surgery was related to her employment, her claim was properly denied. The legislature did not intend the Division’s uncontested award of benefits to rise to the level of a ‘final adjudication’ necessary to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion to outstanding claims for worker’s compensation benefits.

The Medical Commission had jurisdiction to address the issue of the compensability of Appellant’s original injury.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.