Summary 2010 WY 67

Summary of Decision issued May 25, 2010

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

Case Name: Gomez v. State, ex rel., Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 2010 WY 67

Docket Number: S-09-0226

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge.

Representing Gomez: Bill G. Hibbler of Bill G. Hibbler, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristen J. Hanna, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from a district court order affirming a determination by the OAH denying workers’ compensation benefits to the family of Gomez on the ground that his death was not compensable. Gomez was employed as a sheepherder along with his brother-in-law Ambrosio-Rojas by Sundown, Inc. The herders were on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An argument began between the two men, in their work-provided cabin, apparently fueled by alcohol wherein Ambrosio-Rojas shot Gomez in the back, killing him instantly.

The OAH relied on language in Finley stating that an injury arises out of the employment when a causal connection exists between the injury and the conditions under which the work is required to be performed. The district court agreed there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Examiner’s findings. In prior cases denying compensation through application of the recreational or social activity exception to the definition of injury, the Court has found that the employer did not require the employee to participate in the particular activity. To find Gomez’s death compensable would require adoption of what would resemble a strict liability standard for cases where an employee is on call and on the employer’s premises. That is not the law in Wyoming where compensability requires some nexus between the work and the injury.

Conclusion: The OAH did not err as a matter of law in determining that Gomez’s death was not compensable because it did not arise out of his employment, but arose while he was engaged in recreational or social events that he was not required to attend, and where his death did not result from the performance of any task related to his job duties.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/24vw52s .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2009 WY 39

Summary of Decision issued March 18, 2009

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

Case Name: Langberg v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2009 WY 39

Docket Number: S-08-0001

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge.

Representing Appellant Langberg: Thomas L. Lee, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; J.C. Demers, Special Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Langberg suffered two separate injuries to his left wrist while on the job. After his original injury, he felt a pop and experienced pain. After his second injury the pain in his wrist increased in severity. Ultimately, he underwent surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) covered the initial treatment for the injuries but denied coverage for the surgery. The Division found the surgery to be necessitated by a preexisting condition that was not materially aggravated by his job injuries.

Causation of Keinbock’s Disease: Langberg argued the evidence was sufficient to prove the cause of his Keinbock’s was a single traumatic injury relying upon the fact that the x-rays taken after the first injury did not show any abnormalities. The x-rays taken after the second injury showed changes. He argued the circumstantial evidence irrefutably pointed to the work injuries being the trigger for the onset of his Keinbock’s disease. Langberg’s treating physician testified that he couldn’t say the injury did cause the onset of the disease but he also couldn’t rule out that the injury did not cause the onset of the disease. In the face of this testimony, the Court found the OAH’s decision was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. It agreed Langberg’s Keinbock’s disease was not caused by his work injuries but rather was a preexisting condition.
Material aggravation of a preexisting condition: It was Langberg’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his work-related injuries materially aggravated, accelerated, or combined with his Keinbock’s to necessitate the surgery for which he was seeking compensation. Langberg relied upon the circumstances of his case, including the fact that he had no history of left wrist problems before the work injuries and upon the testimony of his doctor stating that the injuries materially exacerbated his Keinbock’s. The parties differed over the definition of “exacerbate” with Langberg arguing it was synonymous with “aggravate.” The Division argued the two terms were mutually exclusive. Each party found support in reference books including a medical dictionary and the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Under the specific circumstances of the case, the Court found no ambiguity in the use of the term “exacerbate.” It was used consistently with its common dictionary definition. Any finding to the contrary was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The doctor’s direct testimony on the issue overwhelmingly established the requisite causal connection between Langberg’s work-related injuries and his surgery.

Conclusion: Upon review of the record as a whole, the Court held the evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding that Langberg’s work-related injuries led to his need for surgery.

Reversed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/c3cs6t .

[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. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summary 2007 WY 124

Summary of Decision issued August 3, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Huntington v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division

Citation: 2007 WY 124

Docket Number: 06-237

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): David M. Gosar of Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: August 3, 2007

Issue: Whether the OAH acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied benefits for the continued deterioration of appellant’s back.

Facts/Discussion: A claimant in a workers’ compensation case must prove all elements of his or her claim for benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. For purposes of workers’ compensation, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-102(a)(xi) defines “injury”.
A causal connection exists between a claimant’s injury and his or her employment when there is a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. The causal connection between an accident or condition at the workplace is satisfied if the medical expert testifies that it is more probable than not that the work contributed in a material fashion to the precipitation, aggravation or acceleration of the injury. A standard of reasonable medical certainty with respect to such causal connection is not invoked. Testimony by the medical expert to the effect that the injury “most likely,” “contributed to,” or “probably” is the product of the workplace suffices under the established standard.
In the present action, the OAH found the Appellant’s expert’s opinion unpersuasive since it failed to take some of Appellant’s activities after the workplace back injury into account in reaching his conclusions about whether the Appellant’s present condition was a direct result of that injury. Against advice, appellant admittedly obtained one job that required some lifting and another that required him to stand on a hard floor that bothered his back. Further, the appellant subsequently suffered two additional injuries that required medical attention. An “unreasonable or not adequately supported” opinion is grounds for disregarding a medical opinion. Thus, the OAH could correctly conclude that, faced with the evidence of other potential causes for the appellant’s increasing back pain, the appellant had not met his burden of proving that the earlier workplace injury caused his current condition because the appellant’s medical reports did not attempt to determine the contribution that the subsequent injuries and work history had on the appellant’s condition. The evidence submitted did not acknowledge the existence of the subsequent work history or accidents.

Holdings: The OAH did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the appellant worker’s compensation benefits in the instant case because the appellant’s medical evidence failed to address the impact that working against medical advice and subsequent injuries had on the appellant’s medical condition. Absent such evidence, the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the essential element of causation.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2pt5nz .

Summary 2007 WY 91

Summary of Decision issued May 30, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Quinn v. Securitas Security Services

Citation: 2007 WY 91

Docket Number: 06-194

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant (Claimant): Bill G. Hibbler, Bill G. Hibbler, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Keith R. Nachbar, Keith R. Nachbar, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether Quinn was injured while he was traveling in a vehicle of his employer pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(D).

Facts/Discussion: Quinn challenged the denial of benefits for injuries he sustained in a bus accident while traveling to work. Securitas employed Quinn as a security guard/EMT at the North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine. As a courtesy, the mine allowed Securitas’ employees to ride a bus that the mine provided for its employees. Quinn was riding that bus when it was involved in an accident and he was injured.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews an agency action pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. The Court reviews a summary judgment in the same light as the district court using the same materials and following the same standards.
The appeal focused on the language “transported by a vehicle of the employer” found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(D). An injury within the meaning of the statute requires a causal nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment. Generally, the causal nexus is lacking when an employee is traveling to work. The recognized exceptions to the general rule find a causal nexus where the employer has in some fashion provided the employee with transportation or has reimbursed him for the costs of those travels. The Court agreed with the district court that the contract language between the mine and Securitas did not support Quinn’s theory that his injuries were compensable because Securitas was providing transportation for its employees. The Court stated that the circumstances were similar to those presented in Berg where they recognized that a benefit provided to employees for use at their discretion does not constitute a condition of employment. The record does not reflect that Securitas assumed the cost of the travel. Therefore the general rule applies and the injuries suffered by Quinn were not compensable.

Holding: The Court found the injuries Quinn suffered in the bus accident were not compensable. He was traveling to work when he was injured and the bus was not a “vehicle of the employer” under the applicable Wyoming statute. Accordingly, the hearing officer properly granted summary judgment to the employer.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

J. Hill dissenting, joined by J. Kite: The Justices would have remanded the matter to the district court with directions to further remand to the OAH with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of Quinn. The Justices were not convinced the contract between Securitas and the coal company had anything to do with the case, but if it did, it ran afoul of the constitutional and statutory prohibition of a contract between a worker and an employer that operates as a waiver of benefits provided by the worker’s compensation statutes. The Justices opinion was that as a practical matter, Securitas provided Quinn with transportation to and from work and Quinn suffered an injury during that transport. Securitas’ extraction of what amounted to a waiver of benefits was contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the governing statutes.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/23vp9s .