Summary 2014 WY 31

Summary of Decision February 27, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: DON BIRCH v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0132

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: F. Gaston Gosar of F. Gaston Gosar, P.C., Pinedale, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samantha Caselli, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: February 27, 2014

Facts: Appellant Don Birch sought reimbursement for travel expenses related to chiropractic treatment he received at the Utah Spine and Disc Clinic in Murray, Utah from the Wyoming Division of Workers’ Compensation (Division). Mr. Birch lived in Daniel, Wyoming. The Division denied his request for reimbursement because traditional types of chiropractic care, manipulation and traction could have been obtained at a location in Wyoming closer to his home, and because cold laser therapy was considered experimental and was therefore not a covered treatment for which the Division would pay travel expenses.

Issues: 1) Are the hearing examiner’s findings sufficient to support his determinations (a) that travel expenses relating to cold laser therapy should not be reimbursed because that therapy is experimental and not compensable, and (b) that no travel expenses relating to any of the treatment received in Utah should be reimbursed because comparable conventional chiropractic treatment could have been obtained in Wyoming closer to Mr. Birch’s home? 2) Does substantial evidence support those findings? 3) As a matter of law, should the hearing examiner have awarded travel expenses relating to manual chiropractic manipulation and mechanical traction as if those services were provided in Rock Springs rather than Utah?

Holdings/Conclusion: The hearing examiner did not err in his interpretation of the applicable Wyoming statutes. His decision contained adequate findings of fact, and those findings were supported by substantial record evidence. We therefore affirm the district court’s order upholding the OAH decision.

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 quotation, 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.]