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.

Summary 2013 WY 28

Summary of Decision March 12, 2013


Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: TYLER L. STALLMAN v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0172

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

Appeal from the District Court of Niobrara County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Brian J. Hunter of McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2013

Facts: Appellant Tyler L. Stallman worked for the Wyoming Department of Corrections at the Wyoming Women’s Center in Lusk, Wyoming. She sustained significant injuries during a vehicle rollover while driving to pick up a prisoner in Sheridan. After receiving a 22% permanent partial impairment award from the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division), she applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The Division denied her application, finding that she did not meet the statutory definition of permanent total disability. Ms. Stallman requested a contested case hearing, and the case was referred to a panel of the Medical Commission (the Commission or panel). Based upon the evidence presented, the Commission concluded that Ms. Stallman did not meet her burden of proving that she was entitled to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. The district court affirmed, and Ms. Stallman appealed to this Court, claiming that the Commission’s final order was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to applicable law due to improper application of the odd lot doctrine

Issues: Was the Commission’s determination that Ms. Stallman was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the odd lot doctrine supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law?

Holdings: The application of the odd lot doctrine is undoubtedly more difficult when a claimant lives in an isolated rural community where jobs are scarce. Nonetheless, our cases make it clear that once a claimant shows that she is de facto unemployable in her community due to her degree of physical impairment and other factors, the burden shifts to the Division to show that gainful employment was in fact available. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Stallman was a prima facie candidate for odd lot treatment, and that the Division failed to establish that light work she could perform was available within a reasonable distance from Lusk. There was an error of law in the application of the odd lot doctrine, and substantial evidence does not support the Commission’s conclusions. The Court accordingly reversed and remanded, directing the district court to remand to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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]

Summary 2012 WY 32

Summary of Decision March 2, 2012

[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] 

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

Case Name:  McMasters v. State, ex rel., Workers’ Safety and Comp. Div.

Citation:  2012 WY 32

Docket Number: S-11-0107   

URL:  http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465121

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner):  Robert Nicholas of Nicholas & Crank, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Respondent):  Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 2, 2012

Facts:  In 2003, Appellant was working as a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) journeyman when he fell nine feet from a beam to a concrete floor and suffered a compression fracture to his L1 vertebrae.  In 2008, Appellant applied for permanent total disability benefits claiming a total disability under the “odd lot” doctrine.  The Worker’s Compensation Division denied the application.

The Division did not dispute that Appellant could not return to work as an HVAC journeyman but instead contended that his failure to obtain alternative employment was due to a preexisting psychological condition and a poor effort to find work.  The Medical Commission agreed and upheld the denial of benefits.  On appeal, the district court found the Commission’s decision to be supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.

Issue: Did the Panel err, as a matter of law, in concluding that Appellant failed to meet his burden in establishing that he is Permanently Totally Disabled?

Holdings:  The Court reversed and remanded.  The Court found that Appellant established a prima facie case under the odd lot doctrine when he showed he could not return to his former employment and the combination of his psychological and physical conditions precluded alternative employment.  The burden thereafter shifted to the Division to show that light work of a special nature, which Appellant could perform, was available.  The Division did not meet its burden.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.