Summary 2013 WY 135

Summary of Decision October 24, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: MARTY D. MCINTOSH v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY and COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0035

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: Margaret M. White of Karpan & White, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
per
Representing Appellee: 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: October 24, 2013

Facts: Appellant Marty D. McIntosh worked as a roustabout for Kissack Oil Field Service in Gillette, Wyoming. He sustained a second to third-degree burn to his right foot while he was steam cleaning a pumping unit. His injury was determined to be compensable and he received a 5% impairment rating. He later experienced right foot pain and difficulty standing and wearing work boots, and he therefore applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. His claim was referred to a panel of the Medical Commission (“the Panel” or “the Commission”) for a contested case hearing. The Commission concluded that McIntosh did not meet his burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine.

Issues: 1. Did the Commission adequately explain the rationale for its decision? 2. Does substantial evidence support the Commission’s conclusion that McIntosh did not meet his burden of proving a prima facie case of odd lot treatment? 3. Did the Commission err in finding that McIntosh’s preexisting conditions caused a significant portion of his symptoms? 4. Did the Commission err when it relied on the statements of two expert evaluators who suggested vocational rehabilitation? 5. Did the Commission act arbitrarily and capriciously because the Panel members examined McIntosh’s right foot at the contested case hearing?

Holdings/Conclusion: The Medical Commission reasonably concluded that McIntosh did not demonstrate entitlement to permanent total disability benefits under the odd lot doctrine, and its conclusions were not contrary to applicable law, arbitrary or capricious. Affirmed.