Case Title: WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION v. PARRISH

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION v. PARRISH2004 WY 144100 P.3d 1244Case Number: 03-189Decided: 11/19/2004Notice:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
October 
Term, A.D. 2004

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellant(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

MICHAEL 
W. PARRISH,

 

Appellee(Claimant/Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable David B. Park, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven 
R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Alora L. Kempster, Special 
Assistant Attorney General.  

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Roger 
E. Shumate and Paul R. Flick of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, 
WY.

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

LEHMAN, 
J., 
delivered the opinion of the court.  
GOLDEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which VOIGT, J., 
joined.

 

 

            
LEHMAN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      The 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division) appeals the decision of the 
State of Wyoming, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), that Michael W. 
Parrish's cervical and lumbosacral spine problems are injuries occurring over a 
substantial period of time and caused by Parrish's heavy lifting at Excal, 
Inc.  Specifically, the Division 
argues that the decision of OAH is not supported by substantial evidence.  Upon our review, we 
affirm.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The Division 
presents these issues, with which Parrish does not 
disagree:

 

1.  Was 
the Hearing Examiner's Order Awarding Benefits supported by substantial evidence 
when the medical evidence establishes that the injury resulted from the 
Claimant's work history prior to moving to Wyoming and working for 
Excal?

 

2.  Did 
the Hearing Examiner err by failing to consider the evidence that indicated the 
Claimant developed symptoms fol­lowing specific events, for which no timely 
claim was submit­ted?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Parrish has a 
long career in the foundry industry.  
In 1976-77, when he was about 18 years old, he was working in a machine 
factory as a general welder; no heavy lifting was involved.  From 1977-90, Parrish worked at 
Acra-Cast Foundry in Los Angeles, California, where he was a general laborer, 
lifting up to 40 pounds hundreds to thousands of times a day.  From 1979-83, still working at 
Acra-Cast, Parrish was washing and closing molds by hand.  The molds were 15 to 30 inches off the 
floor and weighed from 25 to 150 pounds each.  He performed this work 25 to 100 times a 
day.  Parrish also washed sand and 
would carry 100-pound sand bags up a flight of stairs to the loader decks.  He did this 2 to 3 times a week, lifting 
each month a total of 50,000 to 70,000 pounds.  From 1983-90, still working at 
Acra-Cast, Parrish acted as the production manager, lifting pattern weights 
weighing from 50 to 125 pounds and walking with them a distance of about 150 
feet.  He also used ladle weights, 
weighing about 40 pounds, to dip aluminum out of the furnace and then walk with 
them a distance of about 150 feet to the molding line; he did this about 100 
times a day for a year consistently.  
Parrish was further involved in welding large pump casts.  This activity required moving by hand on 
the welding table and in the forklift forks cast weights weighing about 300 to 
1000 pounds.  He welded 200 pieces 
in a six-month time period.  This 
work was done in addition to his normal work.  From 1990-92, Parrish worked for 
Anderson Foundry, also in California.  
His work included heavy lifting; he worked with green sand molds and 
processed with a shovel about 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of sand a day.   He also worked processing parts, 
lifting weights up to 150 pounds.  
From 1992 to April 1994, Parrish worked for Farm Bed Manufacturing in 
Idaho, as a general welder, often lifting up to 150 pounds. 

 

[¶4]      Parrish's foundry 
work caused his body to be sore all over.  
This soreness spanned from 1977 until the last few years.  He had pain and soreness in his arms and 
back.  He knew the pain, stiffness, 
and soreness was caused by the heavy work in the foundry indus­try.  Parrish did not seek any formal medical 
treatment with respect to such complaints. 

 

[¶5]      In April 1994, 
Parrish went to work for Excal, Inc., in Casper, Wyoming.  From that date to the present, he has 
been production manager and quality manager and has moved patterns weighing 75 
to 100 pounds and has sorted castings weighing up to 30 pounds, from a few to 
many thousands.  In early to 
mid-December 1994, about eight months after starting work with Excal, Parrish 
saw Dr. Timothy Johans in Boise, Idaho, upon a referral by Dr. William W. 
Holyfield.  According to Dr. Johans' 
medical record, Parrish 

 

was 
doing reasonably well until four months ago 
when insidi­ously he developed severe neck pain and subscapular pain 
which subsequently over the next week started to radiate all the way down his 
left arm into the thumb, index, and long fingers.  It became increasingly severe, and he 
developed numbness about two months ago.  He was seen and evaluated initially by 
Dr. Holyfield who recognized the radiculopathy and ordered an MRI scan which 
showed a large herniated nucleus pulposes at C6-7 on the left side.  Dr. Holyfield rec­ommended an 
anterior cervical diskectomy, and because the patient has family here in Boise 
and wanted the surgery done in Boise, Dr. Holyfield referred him to 
me[.]

 

(Emphasis 
added.)  Dr. Johans performed the 
C6-7 diskectomy on December 15, 1994. 

 

[¶6]      Some years later 
when Parrish saw Dr. Celia Stenfors-Dacre on February 25, 2002, for an 
independent medical evaluation, upon a referral from Dr. Robert A. Narotzky, Dr. 
Stenfors-Dacre asked Parrish about his medical history.  Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's report states in 
pertinent part that Parrish, at the time of the independent medical evaluation, 
"presents with cervical and lumbosacral back pain."  Then, Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's report 
reads:

 

[Parrish] 
reports his symptoms began in approximately 1994.  Prior to that he had no cervical 
or lumbosacral back pain, no history of injury to either area . . . . His 
symptoms began suddenly . . . .

 

(Emphasis 
added.)  During Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's 
deposition, on September 24, 2002, she was asked if Parrish's 1994 complaints 
were entirely cervical.  She 
testified:

 

[Dr. 
Stenfors-Dacre]:  No, he reported to 
me he had both cer­vical and lumbosacral, that it wasn't specifically one 
more than the other, because I do recall asking him that.  And I don't know that I documented that, 
but he reported that the cervical area under Evaluation [sic] was more painful 
at the time and that's why it was addressed and then subsequently operated 
upon.

 

Q.        So as 
early as 1994 he had symptoms in both the cervi­cal and lumbar spine he 
reported to you?

 

A. 
       Yes, 
that's correct.

 

Shortly 
after this testimony, the following exchange occurred (emphasis 
added):

 

[Q.]      Now, if he's 
starting to develop symptoms in 1994, then is it your opinion that the 
damage has been done to the structures of that back by the nature of the heavy 
lifting and the repetitiveness of that lifting by 
1994?

 

A.        
I would agree that would be correct.

 

Q.        And 
once this conditionI mean, is this like an injury inside of the back to the 
structures of the back which starts this process of the back kind of 
degenerating?

 

A.        Yes, 
that would be correct.  It can 
involve both the disks between the vertebral bodies as well as the vertebral 
bodies themselves.

 

Q.        Did 
it appear to be in his case that most of the degenera­tion was occurring in 
the disk structures?
 

A.        Yes, 
particularly in thewell, actually yes, both in the cervical and lumbosacral 
region it seemed to be more of a disk issue.

 

Q.        And 
those disks form the tissues between the hard bony vertebraes, 
correct?

 

A.        That 
is correct.

 

Q.        And 
as we move and age, those disks are subjected to wear and tear; is that 
correct?

 

A.        That 
is correct, even without the heavy lifting that does 
occur.

 

Q.        And 
in this particular circumstance you believe that the heavy lifting contributed 
to that wear and tear?

 

A.        I 
believe it contributed as well as hastened the process of 
degeneration.

 

Q.        Can 
you say to a reasonable degree of medical probabil­ity that the heavy 
lifting caused the disk degeneration process to begin?
 

A.        
No.  I believe the disk 
degeneration process begins from the time we're born and go onwards.  However, any injury or chronic 
repetitive activities can hasten or cause this process to occur more 
rapidly.  

 

Dr. 
Stanfors-Dacre formed other opinions as a result of her independent medical 
evaluation of Parrish (emphasis added):

 

A.        He 
seemed to be suffering from both cervical and lum­bosacral chronic back pain 
which seemed to be causing some radiculopathy, meaning that he had some residual 
weakness and some sensory changes, as I noted previously. 

 

            
And he has had numerousaccording to the medical records, numerous 
invasive techniques, particularly to the lumbar spine.  And he does not seem to be in much 
improved condition despite all of the interventional work that has been done on 
him.

 

            
You know, he basically is, in my opinion, going to suf­fer from 
chronic cervical and low back pain because of all the changes that he has had, 
both from, you know, the labor side of things as well as from the 
interventional, which can cause scar tissue and so forth and a change in the 
bony architecture of the spine, both in the spine and lumbosacral 
regions.

 

Q.        
Do you come to any conclusions regarding the likely cause of his 
present back condition?

 

A.        The 
conclusion would most likely be due to the fact of the chronic repetitive 
heavy work that he had done from the time of 1976 onward, as I noted under the 
vocational history, and his symptoms would be most consistent with chronic wear 
and tear to the spine.

 

Q.        Did 
you relate his present back condition to any one specific 
incident?

 

A.        I did 
not.
 

Q.        
Okay.  I note your report 
says thatand I'll quote from ithas a high probability of being directlyexcuse 
me.  Let me go back and make sure I 
get the whole thing.

 

            
Mr. Parrish has chronic cervical and lumbosacral back pain which has 
a high probability of being directly correlated to his work history of 
chronic heavy lifting.

 

            
Could you give us the basis for that conclusion, what facts you found 
that would support that conclusion?

 

A.        This 
was based upon the radiographic studies, the neces­sity of cervical surgery, 
lumbosacral surgery and those types of things.  And the findings again are most 
consistent with chronic wear and tear type patterns of the cervical and 
lumbosacral spine.

 

Q.        
Is what you found in your examination and in your review of the 
medical records consistent with the vocational history which he 
reported?

 

A.        
It did appear to be.  

 

[¶7]      Parrish testified 
that he did not know if he was doing enough heavy lifting where he was sore at 
night, when he started working for Excal in 1994.  During his employment at Excal, his neck 
and back would be sore, "but it had been like that for 20 years.  It was just normal."  In early December 1999, Parrish saw Dr. 
Robert A. Narotzky, a neurosurgeon, for treatment of his lower back; about this 
visit, Dr. Narotzky's medical record reveals:

 

He 
has had difficulty with this lower back since 1997.  He has had intermittent low-back pain 
for which he has taken Toradol on a very infrequent basis.  Beginning two weeks ago, 
he had been bending at work and developed severe pain in his left leg with pain 
that radiated into the anteromedial thigh and medial calf.

 

(Emphasis 
added.) 

 

[¶8]      Parrish denied 
ever telling Dr. Narotzky that he had been bending at work and devel­oped 
severe left leg pain that radiated into the thigh and calf.  Dr. Narotzky's notation about Parrish's 
lower back difficulty since 1997 may be placed into context with Parrish having 
visited Dr. Al Metz in early April 1998.  
Dr. Metz ordered an MRI of the lumbosacral spine, which was performed on 
April 7, 1998.  The medical record 
for that MRI reveals a clinical history of "[l]ow back pain with right groin 
pain for three weeks.  Two episodes 
of pain shooting down to the level of the right heel."  The MRI revealed a small to moderate 
sized right foraminal disk herniation at L2-3.  Parrish asked Dr. Metz what may have 
caused this condition, and Dr. Metz told him he had no idea.  When Dr. Narotzky saw Parrish in early 
December 1999, as mentioned above, he also ordered another MRI.  That MRI revealed a far right lateral 
and foraminal disk herniation at L4-5 which had progressed from the 
previous examination and a far left lateral and foraminal disk herniation at 
L3-4, which was believed to be a new finding from the April 1998 MRI 
study.  Parrish stopped 
doing physical labor at Excal in 2000. 

 

[¶9]      In mid-April 
2000, Dr. Narotzky performed a microlumbar diskectomy on Parrish's lower 
back.  Dr. Narotzky's medical 
records in late April and late June 2000 reveal that Parrish was doing well and 
had no back or leg pain.  Parrish 
saw Dr. Narotzky in early November 2000 and underwent another MRI.  It revealed "some very slight disc 
bulging toward the right side of the L-4 level."  On November 27, 2000, Dr. Narotzky's 
medical record discloses that Parrish complained of right-sided low back pain, 
which Dr. Narotzky attributed to the L4-5 disk.  Dr. Narotzky's next medical record is 
dated March 21, 2001, and reports that Parrish had returned to see him.  That medical record 
discloses:

 

He 
is getting a drastic significant low-back pain.  This is now greater on the left side, 
although it had been alternating from one side to the other.  In November of 2000 he fell on the ice; 
and since then, he has had increased pain in his low back on the left side with 
increased pain radiating in the left leg in the anterior thigh to the knee. 

 

When 
asked at his hearing about this report of a fall on ice, Parrish testified, "I 
don't believe it ever happened."  
The MRI report dated March 30, 2001, reveals this clinical 
history:

 

42-year-old 
male with low back pain, eight week history of left leg pain extending into the 
left groin and medial aspect of left leg, fell on ice 15 November 200 [sic]. 

 

On 
April 23, 2001, Dr. Narotzky noted that Parrish had significant disk 
degeneration at all four levels of the lumbar spine.  

 

[¶10]   In early 2002, Parrish was seeing 
Dr. Narotzky for cervical herniations.  
According to Parrish's appellate brief, those cervical herniations "are 
not part of [the worker's com­pensation] claim."  Dr. Narotzky did not give Parrish an 
opinion about whether his work was causing his back problems.  Dr. Narotzky recommended that Parrish 
see Dr. Stenfors-Dacre for an evaluation to find out what may have caused his 
back problems. 

 

[¶11]   Following Dr. Narotzky's direction, 
Parrish prepared a detailed work history, includ­ing the heavy lifting he 
had done, spanning the time from 1976 to 2002.  Parrish handed that work history to Dr. 
Stenfors-Dacre on February 25, 2002, when she examined and evaluated his 
condition.  As a result of that 
examination and evaluation, Dr. Stenfors-Dacre formed the opinions and 
conclusions identified above.

 

[¶12]   On May 6, 2002, Parrish submitted 
his injury report to the Division, making a claim against Excal for an injury 
that occurred over a substantial period of time.  Parrish's submission did not refer to 
any specific injury or any specific date of injury.  On May 10, 2002, the Division issued its 
final determination letter to Parrish informing him that it could not approve 
payment of benefits.  In that 
letter, the Division also informed Parrish that Excal had objected to Parrish's 
injury report.  The Division also 
listed several statute-based reasons for its final determination, including 
"[a]ny injury or condition pre­existing at the time of employment with the 
employer against whom a claim is made." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(F).  On May 22, 
2002, Parrish objected to the Divi­sion's final determination and requested 
a contested case hearing.  

 

[¶13]   A hearing before the OAH was 
conducted on October 28, 2002.  Both 
Parrish and the Division presented evidence and argument; Excal did not 
participate.  On November 27, 2002, 
OAH delivered its decision and entered an order in Parrish's favor.  That order set out findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  Paragraphs two 
through five of the findings of fact contain many, but not all of the facts 
which we have recounted above.  
Paragraphs six and seven of the findings of fact 
read:

 

6.         
Dr. Dacre stated that Parrish had an injury which occurred over a period 
of time.  It is her opinion that: 
(a) there was a direct causal connection between the injury and Parrish's work 
of heavy lifting; (b) the injury was a natural result of the employment; (c) the 
injury can be fairly traced to the employ­ment as a proximate cause; (d) the 
injury does not come from a hazard to which Parrish would have been equally 
exposed to outside work; and (e) the injury is incidental to the work and not 
independent of the work relationship.

 

7.         
The evidence establishes that Parrish's cervical and lum­bosacral 
spine problems are not the result of a pre-existing condition, the natural aging 
process, or from day to day living.  
The medical evidence, however, establishes that Parrish['s] cervical and 
lumbosacral spine problems are an injury occur­ring over time and was caused 
by his heavy lifting at Excal.  
Since Parrish has shown that he suffers from an injury which occurred 
over time, the filing requirements under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502 do not 
apply.  The evidence establishes 
that Parrish filed within two months of being informed that his injury was work 
related, and that he has met his burden under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-503(b).

 

Paragraphs 
four and seven of the conclusions of law read:

 

4.         
Dr. Dacre stated that Parrish's cervical and lumbosacral spine problems 
were most likely be [sic] due to the fact of the chronic repetitive heavy work 
that he had done from the time of 1976 onward, as I noted under the vocational 
history, and his symptoms would be most consistent with chronic wear and tear to 
the spine.  It is the opinion of Dr. 
Dacre that Parrish had a work injury which occurred over a period of 
time.

 

. . .

 

7.         
Parrish has met his burden and has established he suf­fered a work 
injury which occurred over a substantial period of time.  The testimony of Dr. Dacre establishes 
each of the requirements listed in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(a) (Lexis 
2001).  As such, Parrish is entitled 
to benefits.

 

[¶14]   On December 23, 2002, the Division 
filed its petition for review with the district court; subsequently, that court 
affirmed the hearing examiner's order.  
The Division timely appealed from that decision.  

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶15]   Robbins 
v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 
2003 Wy 29, ¶¶16-18, 64 P.3d 729, ¶¶16-18 (Wyo. 2003), identifies, once again, 
the applicable stan­dard of review:

 

            
In a worker's compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proving 
she suffered a "compensable injury."  
Logue v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compen­sation Division, 2002 WY 62, ¶11, 44 P.3d 90, 
¶11 (Wyo. 2002); see also State ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo. 
1996).  To sat­isfy part of that 
burden, the claimant must prove the injury occurred in the course and scope of 
employment.  Logue, 2002 WY 62, ¶11; State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo. 1996).

 

            
Section 27-14-603(a) sets forth the claimant's burden of proving an 
injury which occurred over a substantial period of time:

 

(a)  The 
burden of proof in contested cases involving injuries which occur over a 
substantial period of time is on the employee to prove by competent medical 
author­ity that his claim arose out of and in the course of his employment 
and to prove by a preponderance of evi­dence that:

 

(i) 
There is a direct causal connection between the condition or circumstances under 
which the work is performed and the injury;

   

(ii) 
The injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a 
result of the employment;

   

(iii) 
The injury can fairly be traced to the employ­ment as a proximate 
cause;

   

(iv) 
The injury does not come from a hazard to which employees would have been 
equally exposed outside of the employment; and

   

(v) 
The injury is incidental to the character of the business and not independent of 
the relation of employer and employee.

 

            
This Court recently refined the standard of review for worker's 
compensation cases in Newman v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2002).  We held "the 
substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from 
WAPA contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both 
parties submit evidence."  2002 WY 
91, ¶22. "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a rea­sonable mind 
might accept in support of the agency's conclusions.  It is more than a scintilla of 
evidence." Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶10 
(citation omitted).  

 

In 
this case, both parties submitted evidence, and the hearing examiner made 
findings of fact; therefore, this court applies the substantial evidence test to 
the Division's appeal.

 

[¶16]   The Division pins its hope for 
success on appeal on the argument that Parrish's back condition is a preexisting 
degenerative back condition occurring over a substantial period of time from 
1977 to 1994 before his Excal employment and Parrish failed to present any 
evidence that his current back problems arose from a material aggravation of 
that preexist­ing degenerative back condition.  Our applicable standard of review in 
such case was recently expressed in Salas 
v. General Chemical, 2003 WY 79, ¶¶10-11, 71 P.3d 708, ¶¶10-11 (Wyo. 
2003):

 

            
An "injury" does not include a "condition preexisting at the time of 
employment with the employer against whom a claim is made." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(F) (Michie 1997).  
The 

 

burden 
is upon the claimant to prove that his work acci­dent, not his preexisting 
condition, caused the necessity for the surgery.  Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996); Matter of Claim of Fortier, 910 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo. 1996). While aggravation of a pre­existing condition is a 
compensable injury, Matter of Injury to 
Carpenter, 736 P.2d 311, 312 (Wyo. 1987), claimant must prove that his 
employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to 
produce the disability for which compensation is sought.  Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59, 
61 (Wyo. 1993); Lindbloom v. Teton 
Int'l, 684 P.2d 1388, 1390 (Wyo. 1984). 

 

State 
ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Roggenbuck, 
938 P.2d 851, 853 (Wyo. 1997). "To prove aggravation of a preexisting injury, 
the claimant must demon­strate that the work effort contributed to a 
material degree to the . . . aggravation . . . of the existing condition of the 
employee.'"  Frazier v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Div., 997 P.2d 487, 490 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting Lindbloom v. Teton Intern., 684 P.2d 1388, 1389-90 (Wyo. 1984) (emphasis omitted).

 

"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 . . . aggravation . . . of the 
injury.  We do not invoke a standard 
of rea­sonable medical certainty with respect to such causal connection. 
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 
our established standard. . . .

 

            
Under either the reasonable medical probability' or more probable than 
not' standard, [a claimant suc­ceeds] in demonstrating the causal connection 
by a preponderance of the evidence."

 

Hall 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 
2001 WY 136, ¶16, 37 P.3d 373, 378 (Wyo. 2001) (quoting In re Pino, 996 P.2d 679, 685 (Wyo. 
2000)).

 

            
Whether the employment "aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the 
internal weakness or disease to produce the disability is a question of 
fact.'"  Brees v. Gulley Enterprises, Inc., 6 P.3d 128, 131 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting Lindbloom, 684 P.2d at 
1390).

 

Further, 
although the district court upheld the hearing examiner's determination, this 
court affords no deference to conclusions reached by the district court; we 
review the case as if it had come directly from the hearing examiner.  State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div. v. 
Brewbaker, 972 P.2d 962, 964 (Wyo. 1999).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶17]   The Division agrees with the 
finding of fact that Parrish's cervical and lumbosacral spine problems are an 
injury occurring over a substantial period of time.  Indeed, the Divi­sion agrees with 
Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's opinion that the most likely cause of Parrish's present 
back condition is "the chronic repetitive heavy work that he had done from the 
time of 1976 onward" until 1994.  
However, the Division forcefully asserts "Parrish's back was damaged 
before he ever came to Excal."  The 
Division supports this assertion with Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's testimony that as 
early as 1994 Parrish had complaints about, and symp­toms in, the 
lumbosacral spine and Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's opinion that, if Parrish developed 
such symptoms in 1994, then by 1994 the damage had been done to the structures 
of Parrish's back by the nature of the repetitive heavy lifting as revealed in 
Parrish's detailed work history.  
The Division submits that Parrish failed to present any evidence that his 
present back problems were caused by a material aggravation of his preexisting 
degenera­tive back problem.  
Thus, the Division contends that the hearing examiner's finding that 
Parrish's spine problems are not the result of a preexisting condition is not 
supported by substantial evidence.

 

[¶18]   In the alternative, the Division 
contends that the hearing examiner ignored the medi­cal evidence that 
Parrish injured his back in two specific incidents, one in 1999 when he bent 
over and developed severe radiating pain in his left leg, and the other in 
November 2000 when he fell on ice and thereafter experienced drastic significant 
low-back pain alter­nating from side to side with increased pain radiating 
in the left leg.  The Division 
argues that the hearing examiner's failure to consider such evidence constitutes 
arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.

 

[¶19]   On the other hand, Parrish contends 
that the hearing examiner considered all rele­vant evidence and concluded 
that Parrish's long history of working in the heavy labor industry did not 
preclude the finding of a causal connection between his back condition and his 
Excal employment.  He contends that 
his spinal pathology worsened during his Excal employment, pointing to the 
comparison of his 1998 MRI with his 1999 MRI.  With regard to the Division's 
alternative position that Parrish's back condition may have been caused by a 
bending incident in 1999 and a fall on ice in November 2000, Parrish claims the 
hearing examiner considered, but properly rejected, that evidence under the 
weight of substantial evidence that Parrish's chronic heavy lifting was the 
cause of his back problems.

 

[¶20]   We have carefully examined the 
entire record to determine if OAH's decision is sup­ported by substantial 
evidence.  We have carefully 
considered the parties' contentions in light of that record and in light of the 
applicable law.  Based upon that 
examination and consideration, we hold that OAH's decision should be 
affirmed.

 

[¶21]   Substantial evidence supports the 
fact that Parrish's degenerative back condition existed before and at the time 
of Parrish's 1994 employment by Excal.  
Parrish's own tes­timony and Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's testimony supports 
that fact.  Parrish's work effort 
for 16-17 years of chronic repetitive heavy lifting in the foundry industry is 
well documented.  That work effort 
caused his body to be "sore all over."  
He had soreness, stiffness, and pain in his arms and back.  He told Dr. Stenfors-Dacre that he had 
symptoms in both the cervical and lumbar spine as early as 1994.  According to Parrish, his neck and back 
were sore during his Excal employment, "but it had been like that for 20 
years.  It was just normal."  Dr. Stenfors-Dacre expressed several 
significant opinions in this regard:  
a) As to an individual who has been doing chronic repetitive heavy 
lifting and hard physi­cal labor from 1977 onward and who starts developing 
symptoms in 1994, by 1994 the damage has been done to the structures (disks) of 
that individual's backthe degenerative process is underway.  Heavy lifting contributed to and 
hastened the degeneration process; b) Parrish is going to suffer from 
chronic cervical and low back pain because of all the changes he has had both 
from the labor side of things as well as from the surgical inter­ventional 
side of things which can cause scar tissue and a change in the bony architecture 
of the spine; c) The most likely cause of Parrish's present back condition 
is the chronic repetitive heavy work that he had done from the time of 1976 
onward; his symptoms would be most con­sistent with chronic wear and tear to 
the spine; and d) Parrish's chronic cervical and lumbosacral back pain has 
a high probability of being directly correlated to his work history of chronic 
heavy lifting.

 

[¶22]   Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's findings are 
consistent with the vocational history which Parrish reported.  Nonetheless, aggravation of a 
preexisting medical condition is a com­pensable injury if Parrish could 
prove that his Excal work effort aggravated his degenera­tive back condition 
to produce the current back condition for which he seeks compensation.  To prove aggravation of his preexisting 
medical condition, Parrish must demonstrate that his Excal work effort 
materially contributed to the aggravation of his existing degenerative back 
condition.  That causal connection 
is satisfied if his medical expert testi­fies that it is more probable than 
not that his Excal work effort contributed in a material fashion to the 
aggravation of the degenerative back condition.  Whether Parrish's Excal work effort 
contributed in a material fashion to the aggravation of the degenerative back 
condition is a question of fact.  
The record contains substantial evidence to prove that fact.  

 

[¶23]   In this case the record 
specifically shows that in April 1994, Parrish began employ­ment with Excal, 
Inc.  As a part of this employment 
at Excal, Inc., Parrish moved patterns weighing 75 to 100 pounds and sorted 
castings weighing up to 30 pounds.  
In early to mid-December 1994, about eight months after 
starting work with Excal, Inc., Parrish went to see Dr. Johans upon referral by 
Dr. Holyfield.  Dr. Johans noted 
that Parrish was doing reasonably well until four 
months ago when insidiously 
he developed severe 
neck and back pain and subscapular pain which subsequently over the next week 
started to radiate all the way down his left arm into the thumb, index, and long 
fingers.  This pain then became 
increasingly 
severe, and Parrish developed numbness about two months ago.  Dr. Johans subsequently performed a C6-7 
diskectomy upon Parrish on December 15, 1994.

 

[¶24]   In April 1998, Dr. Metz ordered an 
MRI of Parrish' lumrosacral spine, which revealed a small to moderate sized 
right foraminal disk herniation at L2-3.  
At this time, Parrish indicated that he had been experiencing low back 
pain with right groin pain for three 
weeks, with two episodes of pain shooting down to the level of the right 
heel.  In early December 1999, 
Parrish saw Dr. Narotzky.  His 
medical records recounted that Parrish had difficulty with his lower back since 
1997 and, two weeks 
previous to his appointment, Parrish had been bending at work and 
developed severe pain in his left leg with pain that radiated into the 
anteromedial thigh and medial calf.  
Another MRI then revealed a far right lateral and foraminal disk 
herniation at L4-5 which had 
progressed from the previous examination and a far left lateral and 
foraminal disk herniation at L3-4, which was a new 
finding from the April 1998 MRI study. 

 

[¶25]   In mid-April 2000, Dr. Narotzky 
performed a microlumbar diskectomy on Parrish's lower back.  In early November 2000, Parrish 
submitted to another MRI.  This 
testing revealed some slight disk bulging toward the right side of the L4 
level.  In late November 2000, 
Parrish complained of right-sided low back pain.  Dr. Narotzky attributed this pain to the 
L4-5 disk.  Even as late as February 
25, 2002, when Parrish saw Dr. Stenfors-Dacre, not for treatment purposes but 
for an independent medical evaluation, she indicated in her records that Parrish reported 
his symptoms to begin in approximately 1994; prior to that 
Parrish had no cervical or lumbosacral back pain, with no history to either 
area, and his symptoms then began suddenly.  In fact, Parrish reported to Dr. 
Stenfors-Dacre that prior to that 
date he had no specific back symptoms and no history of injury to his back, 
either at work or elsewhere. 

 

[¶26]   There is no dispute that Parrish's 
back began to degenerate before he began employ­ment with Excal, Inc.  Dr. Stenfors-Dacre unequivocally stated 
that back degeneration begins upon birth, and Parrish performed repetitive heavy 
lifting in the foundry industry beginning in 1976 that would have hastened the 
degenerative process.  However, she 
fur­ther indicated that any injury would likewise hasten or cause the disk 
degeneration process.  While Parrish 
had prior soreness, stiffness, and some pain in his arms and back, the record 
establishes that Parrish did not experience severe enough pain in the cervical 
and lumbar spine to seek medical assistance until November 1994, approximately 
eight months after he 
had been employed by Excal, Inc.  
Subsequently, Parrish continued to experience severe back problems when he remained 
employed at Excal, Inc.

 

[¶27]   Dr. Stenfors-Dacre further opined 
that the most likely cause of Parrish's present back condition was chronic 
repetitive heavy work that he had done since 1976 and that Parrish's chronic 
cervical and lumbosacral back pain had a high probabil­ity of being directly 
correlated to his work history of chronic heavy lifting.  Of course, this time frame would include 
the time that Parrish worked at Excal, Inc. from 1994 forward.   

 

Preexisting 
disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim under the 
"arising out of employment" requirement if the employment aggra­vated, 
accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the death or 
disability for which compensation is sought.

 

Hepp v. 
State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's 
Compensation, § 12.21 (1996)); see also Jim's Water Serv. v. Eayrs, 590 P.2d 1346, 1349 (Wyo. 1979).  

 

State ex 
rel. Worker's Compensation Div. v. Roggenbuck, 938 P.2d 851, 854 (Wyo. 1997) (Hartman, D.J., dissenting).   We conclude, therefore, that 
substantial evidence was pro­duced at the hearing to support a determination 
that Parrish's Excal, Inc. work effort actually caused his back injuries, or at 
least contributed in a material degree to the aggra­vation of his 
preexisting degenerative back condition.  

 

[¶28]   Finally, Parrish cannot be faulted 
for not properly fashioning his case so that it was possible to reach a 
conclusion that Parrish's Excal. Inc. work effort materially contributed to the 
aggravation of his preexisting degenerative back condition.  To the contrary, Parrish's injury report 
stated that his injuries had occurred over a substantial period of time while he 
was at Excal, Inc. without any reference to any specific date of injury.  He there­after consistently asserted 
this position.   We see little difference in Parrish's 
position and a contention that he had a preexisting back degenerative condition 
and that as a result of his employment at Excal, Inc., such effort caused his 
substantive back injuries and/or materi­ally contributed to the aggravation 
of his preexisting degenerative back condition.1   

 

[¶29]   It is well established in Wyoming 
that:

 

            
An employee-claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden to 
prove all the statutory elements which com­prise a compensable injury by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. 
City of Casper, 2001 WY 4, ¶6, 16 P.3d 710, ¶6 (Wyo. 2001); Sherwin-Williams Company v. Borchert, 
994 P.2d 959, 963 (Wyo. 2000); Thornberg 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 913 P.2d 863, 866 
(Wyo. 1996). This includes establishing the cause of the con­dition for 
which compensation is claimed and proving that the injury arose out of and in 
the course of employment.  Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance, 2001 WY 
17, ¶10, 19 P.3d 500, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001); Hanks, ¶6; State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo. 1996). Put another way, the 
claimant has the burden of fol­lowing procedures and rules contained within 
the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act in order to establish entitlement to 
worker's compensation benefits. Sherwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d  at 
963; Pittman v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Division, 917 P.2d 614, 617 (Wyo. 
1996).

 

            
To meet the preponderance standard, the claimant must present evidence 
which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact 
is more probable than its non-existence. Sherwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d  at 
963. 

 

Bruns 
v. TW Services, Inc., 
2001 WY 127, ¶¶12-13, 36 P.3d 608, ¶¶12-13 (Wyo. 2001).  We have equally well established that 
upon our review of the entire record, if the agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency and must uphold the findings on appeal.  Ludwig v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Div., 2004 WY 34, ¶6, 86 P.3d 875, ¶6 (Wyo. 
2004).

 

[¶30]   Moreover, even if a conclusion can 
be reached that the OAH improperly found that Parrish's injuries were caused 
solely by 
his Excal, Inc. work over a substantial period of time, sufficient evidence was 
presented to prove that Parrish's employment at Excal, Inc. actually either 
caused his back injuries, or at least contributed to a material degree to the 
aggravation of his preexisting degenerative back condition.  Finally, for the same reasons noted 
above, we conclude that the bending incident in 1999 and Parrish's fall on the 
ice in November 2000 were considered by OAH, yet the OAH properly rejected such 
evidence as having a causal connection to Parrish's work-related injuries.   

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶31]   Upon careful examination of the 
entire record, we hold that OAH's decision is supported by substantial 
evidence.  
Affirmed.

 

GOLDEN, 
J., 
dissenting, in which VOIGT, J., joins.

 

[¶32]      
I 
respectfully dissent.  Parrish 
pursued his claim under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(a), contending that his 
degenerative lumbosacral "injury" occurred over a substantial period of time and 
arose out of and in the course of his Excal employment.  The Division opposed his claim, 
contending, among other things, that Parrish's degenerative lumbosacral "injury" 
was a "condition preexisting at the time of employment with [Excal]" and, 
therefore, did not satisfy the definition of "injury" under the Workers' 
Compensation Act.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(F) (LexisNexis 2003).

 

[¶33]      
Parrish's 
report of injury and its attachment made no mention of a preexisting condition 
claim; Parrish's contested case disclosure statement made no mention of a 
preexisting condition claim.  
Neither Parrish's opening statement nor his closing argument at the 
contested case hearing expressed a preexisting condition claim.  Importantly, the hearing examiner's 
decision is clearly not an "aggravation-of-preexisting condition" decision.  Importantly, Dr. Stenfors-Dacre did not 
express any opinion that Parrish's work effort in the six years of Excal 
employment, in contrast to the previous sixteen plus years of chronic repetitive 
heavy lifting and hard physical labor for other employers, contributed in a 
material fashion to the aggravation of Parrish's degenerative back 
condition.  The record is pregnant 
with evidence that Parrish's degenerative lumbosacral "injury" preexisted 
Parrish's Excal employment.  

 

[¶34]      
The 
majority opinion states that it sees "little difference" in Parrish's contested 
case position that his "injury" had occurred over a substantial period of time 
while employed by Excal and a contention that his Excal work materially 
contributed to the aggravation of his preexisting "injury."  The "difference" is much more than 
"little."  It has to do with 
Parrish's burden of proof.  He must 
prove that his Excal work contributed to a material degree to the aggravation of 
his preexisting degenerative lumbosacral condition.  That is the determinative fact in this 
case and, on this record, Parrish failed to produce substantial evidence of that 
determinative fact.  Tellingly, Dr. 
Stenfors-Dacre, upon whom Parrish relies, did not express any opinion that 
Parrish's six years' work at Excal contributed in a material fashion to the 
aggravation of Parrish's preexisting degenerative lumbosacral 
condition.

 

[¶35]      
I 
think the majority has impermissibly both reframed the issue on which Parrish 
went to hearing and rewritten the hearing examiner's decision.  I would reverse the hearing examiner's 
decision because it is not supported by substantial 
evidence.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1Given 
Dr. Stenfors-Dacre's position that back degeneration begins in everyone 
immediately upon birth, virtually anybody asserting a degenerative back-related 
claim under Wyoming's workers' compensation system is, in essence, contending 
that their work responsibilities either directly caused the involved substantive 
back injury or injuries or materially contributed to the aggravation of the 
preexisting degenerative back condition.