Summary 2014 WY 40

Summary of Decision March 21, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed, as modified.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: RICHARD J. DELACASTRO v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0141

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Robert A. Nicholas, Nicholas Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Date of Decision: March 21, 2014

Facts: Richard J. Delacastro suffered a work-related injury to his right hip in 2007. In 2009, the State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied, as unrelated to his work injury, requests for testing and treatment of pain in his back. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the Division’s final determination, directed payment of Mr. Delacastro’s outstanding medical bills and ordered that one additional test be performed to determine whether his back problems were associated with his work injury. The parties submitted the results of the test, which were normal, and the hearing examiner ordered that Mr. Delacastro was not entitled to further benefits for his back.

Issues: Mr. Delacastro presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: 1. Is the OAH’s decision denying all future medical benefits for [Mr. Delacastro’s] ongoing right hip and thigh pain supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law? 2. Is the OAH’s decision denying additional diagnostic testing supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law . . .?

The Division phrases the issue on appeal as: In 2007, Delacastro injured his right hip, and the Department ruled this was a compensable work place injury. Nearly two years later, in 2009, Delacastro returned to his physician and underwent an MRI to diagnose “back pain.” The Division denied coverage for Delacastro’s 2009 medical treatment, concluding it was unrelated to his 2007 hip injury. At the contested case hearing, Delacastro argued that he actually injured his back in 2007, not his hip, and this 2007 back injury caused his 2009 symptoms. After ordering further investigation, the hearing examiner ruled that Delacastro failed to meet his burden to prove that he suffered a back injury in 2007 and that this back injury caused his symptoms in 2009. Does substantial evidence support the hearing examiner’s decision?

Holdings: The district court affirmed the OAH decision, and Mr. Delacastro appealed to this Court. We conclude substantial evidence supports the OAH decision that Mr. Delacastro did not satisfy his burden of proving additional testing and treatment of his back were related to his work injury; however, we clarify that future treatment associated with the original hip injury may be submitted for administrative review. We affirm, as modified.

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 2014 WY 25

Summary of Decision February 21, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DEANA V. LANDWEHR, a/k/a DEANA STREUBING v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0139

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Dana J. Lent, Attorney at Law, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Brenda S. Yamaji, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2014

Facts: The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant, Deana Landwehr, after she experienced a workplace injury to her back in 1999. In 2008, Ms. Landwehr experienced a second workplace injury while employed in Nebraska. In 2010, Ms. Landwehr sought payment for prescription medication that she claimed was necessary treatment relating to her 1999 workplace injury. The Division denied the claim. Ms. Landwehr requested a contested case hearing, and the hearing examiner upheld the Division’s denial of benefits. Ms. Landwehr appealed to the district court, which affirmed the hearing examiner’s order. She challenges the district court’s decision in this appeal. We affirm.

Issue: Was the hearing examiner’s determination that Appellant failed to satisfy her burden of proof unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole?

Holdings/Conclusion: In sum, the evidence in this case does not support Ms. Landwehr’s claim that the headaches she experienced in 2010 were related to the initial workplace injury to her mid-back. During the 11 years that elapsed since her initial workplace injury, Ms. Landwehr received at least four MRI’s, all of which were “unremarkable” and returned no objective evidence of a causal connection between her mid-thoracic strain and her claimed symptoms. Also during this time, Ms. Landwehr was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and fibromyalgia, both of which provide possible explanations for her upper-extremity symptoms, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that either of these diseases was related to the initial workplace injury. Most importantly, Dr. Hopfensperger’s testimony that the cause of Ms. Landwehr’s headaches was “idiopathic” and “occult” provides absolutely no basis to conclude that her headaches were, more probably than not, the result of her initial back injury in 1999, as opposed to the 2008 workplace injury to her head, for which she received a worker’s compensation settlement in Nebraska. We find substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s conclusion that there was no causal connection between Ms. Landwehr’s headaches and her 1999 workplace injury.

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.]

Summary 2014 WY 18

Summary of Decision February 4, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JAMES C. McCALLIE v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Docket Number: S-13-0099

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

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

Representing Appellant: Dana J. Lent, Attorney at Law, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jackson M. Engels, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2014

Facts: The Department of Transportation disqualified James McCallie from driving commercial vehicles for one year on the basis that he had driven a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04% or greater. After a contested case hearing, the hearing examiner upheld the disqualification. Mr. McCallie challenges the agency’s decision on appeal, claiming generally that the hearing examiner’s findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Issues: 1) Were the hearing examiner’s findings of fact regarding probable cause for arrest supported by substantial evidence? 2) Was the order upholding the disqualification of Mr. McCallie’s commercial driver’s license supported by accurate findings of fact and substantial evidence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the hearing examiner’s decision, and we will affirm.

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.]

Summary 2012 WY 89

Summary of Decision June 22, 2012


Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: VIC AND JANE GARBER; SANDRA LANGE, Trustee of the Sandra K. Lange Trust; FRED AND WENDY LARSON; FRED SMITH; MICHAEL AND NITA WERNER; ROSS AND BIFF GORMAN; DR. KIRBY KIRKLAND; and DAVE AND GLYNDA EDWARDS v. WAGONHOUND LAND & LIVESTOCK COMPANY, LLC; VENJOHN OIL, INC., and STEVEN M. VENJOHN

Docket Number: S 11 0006

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

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

Representing Appellants:

Harriet M. Hageman and Kara Brighton of Hageman & Brighton, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Hageman.

Representing Appellee Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company, LLC:

Robert G. Berger and Mistee L. Godwin of Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Godwin.

Representing Appellees VenJohn Oil, Inc. and Steven M. VenJohn:

No appearance.

Date of Decision: June 22, 2012

Facts: Wagonhound Land and Livestock Company, LLC (Wagonhound), VenJohn Oil, Inc., and Steven M. VenJohn (VenJohn) (collectively Applicants) filed a petition with the Wyoming State Board of Control (Board) seeking to change the place of use, point of diversion and means of conveyance for water appropriations attached to 174.8 acres. VenJohn owned the appropriations from the North Platte River and requested that the point of diversion and place of use of the rights be moved upstream to Wagonhound’s land. Vic and Jane Garber, et al. (Objectors), who were intervening water right holders, objected to the petition, and the Board held a contested case hearing. The Board granted the Applicants’ petition but reduced the transferred rights to 152.5 acres. The Objectors petitioned the district court for review of the Board’s decision, and that court affirmed. They then appealed.

Issues: The Objectors presented the following issues on appeal: 1)Whether the final decision of the Board of Control was supported by substantial evidence in the record. 2)Whether the final decision of the Board of Control was in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-104. 3)Whether the final decision of the Board of Control was in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-114.

The Applicants articulated a single issue: 1)Whether the decision of the Board of Control to grant in part and deny in part the Petition was supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to law, in accordance with Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c).

Holdings: The Court concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was consistent with the 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]

Summary 2011 WY 49

Summary of Decision March 21, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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: Watkins v. State

Citation: 2011 WY 49

Docket Number: S-10-0129

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461832

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Claimant): Bill G. Hibbler of Bill G. Hibbler, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2011

Facts: The Appellant felt a pop in his back and began experiencing pain after he jumped down from his work truck. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for a period of time and then eventually terminated those benefits. The Division’s denial of benefits was affirmed in a contested case hearing before the Wyoming Medical Commission and the Appellant appealed from that decision.

Issue: Whether the Commission’s determination that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proving he was entitled to further TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings: The Appellant’s January 2, 2007, injury (back pain arising after he jumped down from his truck) was work-related and compensable. The question presented was whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s determination that the Appellant was no longer entitled to TTD benefits after May 21, 2007―the date of the Appellant’s IME. The Appellant claimed that there was a “total lack of substantial evidence” to support the Commission’s determination that his condition had stabilized on that date such that he should not receive additional TTD benefits. The Commission’s determination that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proving he was entitled to further TTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Based on the facts presented, the Court found that the Commission could have reasonably concluded as it did. Affirmed.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court.

Justice Hill filed a dissenting opinion.

The dissenting opinion concluded that when the Court deletes from consideration what amounts to idle speculation on the part of the hearing panel, as well as inaccurate, incomplete and/or insubstantial findings, the denial of benefits in this case could not stand.

The dissenting opinion would reverse the order of the district court and remand the case to that court with further directions that it be remanded to the Medical Commission for the purpose of it directing the Division to award Appellant any and all medical benefits and disability awards that are due him for the work-related injury that occurred on January 2, 2007.

Summary 2011 WY 45

Summary of Decision March 11, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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: Mahaffey v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety and Comp. Div.

Citation: 2011 WY 45

Docket Number: S-09-0091

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461815

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 11, 2011

Facts: After suffering a compensable work-related neck injury, Appellant applied for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits in accordance with the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Act. The Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied the application and Appellant requested a hearing. Following the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearing’s (OAH) awarded him benefits, determining that Appellant was unable to drive due to his injury; the only available jobs paying a comparable wage identified by the vocational evaluator required driving; and therefore, he was unable to return to work at a wage comparable to his pre-injury earnings. The Division appealed the award to the district court, contending that the only factor preventing him from driving was that he had lost his driver’s license as a result of his arrest for DUI. The district court reversed the OAH decision, and Appellant appealed to this Court. After the appeal was filed, Appellant passed away and the personal representative of his estate was substituted as the party of record.

Issues: Whether the OAH’s decision was supported by substantial evidence or whether the OAH abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, capriciously or not in accordance with the law when it awarded benefits.

Holdings:

The district court improperly substituted its judgment for the fact finder’s when it reversed the OAH decision awarding Appellant benefits. Although the evidence in this case may be subject to different interpretations, substantial evidence was presented to support the OAH’s determination that Appellant was not able to drive on a regular basis because of his injury. The OAH decision was not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. The Court reversed and remanded to the district court with directions the case be returned to the OAH for reinstatement of the order awarding benefits to Appellant.

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

J. Golden filed a dissenting opinion.

The dissenting opinion concluded that the hearing examiner had not carefully weighed all of the material evidence and had not resolved the conflicts in that evidence, providing the Court no rational basis upon which to conduct its appellate review of the hearing examiner’s decision. The Dissent would reverse the order of the district court, remand the case to that court with directions to vacate the order denying benefits, and would direct the district court to remand the case to the OAH for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law.