Summary 2011 WY 93

Summary of Decision June 13, 2011


[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: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF WILL TORRES, AN EMPLOYEE OF HOME DEPOT USA: WILL TORRES, v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Citation: 2011 WY 93

Docket Number: S-10-0123

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462737

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Sean W. Scoggin of McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming

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

Date of Decision: June 13, 2011

Facts: Appellant sought worker’s compensation benefits relating to an August 2007 back surgery that he claimed was the product of a work-related injury he suffered in December 2006. Appellees denied benefits. The Division’s denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and, later, by the district court.

Issues: Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing’s Decision that Appellant was not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits for his August 15, 2007, surgery and for worker’s compensation benefits thereafter was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the standing case law.

Holdings: The law governing a claimant’s burden of proof is well established. It is undisputed that the Appellant suffered from a preexisting degenerative condition in his low back. It is also undisputed that Appellant suffered a work injury on December 28, 2006. The issue was whether the hearing examiner properly determined that Appellant had not met his burden of proving the back surgery was causally related to his 2006 work injury.

The review shows that the only evidence presented by Appellant on the issue of causation was his own testimony and the medical opinion of Dr. Beer. Appellant asserted that he did not injure his back until he slipped on the ice in the Home Depot parking lot. However, the medical evidence was not entirely consistent with his claims in that regard. Noting these inconsistencies, the hearing examiner concluded that Appellant was not entirely credible.

The hearing examiner also was not persuaded by the opinion of Dr. Beer and afforded it little weight. The hearing examiner noted that Dr. Beer had based his opinion on an incomplete medical history, was not aware that Appellant had complained of back pain and sought medical attention prior to the 2006 injury, and had been diagnosed with lumbar spine degenerative disease. Dr. Beer’s opinion was based, in part, on the belief that Appellant had not suffered low back pain and radiating leg pain until the 2006 incident. However, Appellant’s medical records indicated complaints of severe low back pain radiating into his left leg in July 2004. The hearing officer also noted that Dr. Beer did not address how Appellant’s preexisting degenerative condition might have affected his need for the fusion surgery, nor provide a detailed explanation as to why he reached the conclusion that Appellant’s back condition was caused by the 2006 work injury.

It was the hearing examiner’s responsibility to determine relevancy, assign probative value and ascribe the relevant weight to be given Dr. Beer’s opinion. The hearing examiner was not bound by Dr. Beer’s opinion and was entitled to disregard it if he found the opinion “unreasonable, not adequately supported by the facts upon which the opinion is based, or based upon an incomplete and inaccurate medical history provided by the claimant.” Upon reviewing the record the Court found substantial evidence existed to support the hearing examiner’s conclusion regarding the credibility and weight given to Dr. Beer’s opinion.

The Court found that the hearing examiner’s determination that Appellant had failed to prove a causal relationship between the fusion surgery and the 2006 work incident was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence in this case. Affirmed.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.