Summary 2012 WY 94

Summary of Decision July 3, 2012


Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIMS OF: RYAN DORMAN, AN EMPLOYEE OF MELEHES BROTHERS, INC., v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-11-0292

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General
Date of Decision: July 3, 2012
Facts: This appeal arises out of Ryan Dorman’s petition for an extension of his worker’s compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne, Wyoming, to obtain medical care. The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied those benefits, and that denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the district court.

Issues: Ryan Dorman (Dorman) presented the following issues on appeal:

I. Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision and affirmation thereof by the district court, that Mr. Dorman is not entitled to receive additional temporary total disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, as well as not supported by the substantial evidence presented at the hearing and case law.

II. Whether the Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision and affirmation thereof by the district court that Mr. Dorman is not entitled to reimbursement for travel to and from visits with Dr. Beer was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the substantial evidence presented at the hearing and case law.

Holdings: The OAH conclusion that Dorman had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to extended TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. Likewise, its conclusion that Dorman had not met his burden of showing that he was seeking treatment from the closest available health care provider and was thus entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses was also supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Affirmed.

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

[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. 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]