Case Title: Matter of Injury to Kemp

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1986-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Injury to Kemp1986 WY 5711 P.2d 1142Case Number: 85-220Decided: 01/08/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE INJURY TO KENNETH A. KEMP, AN EMPLOYEE 
OF WINKS, INC. STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
APPELLANT (OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT),

 
 
v. 

 
 
KENNETH A. KEMP, APPELLEE 
(EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT).

 
 
Appeal from the District Court,LaramieCounty, Joseph F. Maier, 
J.

 
 
 
 
Representing Appellant: 

A.G. McClintock, Atty. 
Gen., Terry J. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Patrick J. Crank, Asst. Atty. 
Gen.(objector-defendant).

 
 
Representing Appellee: 

Kenneth G. Vines, of 
Vines, Rideout, Gusea & White, P.C., Cheyenne 
(employee-claimant).

 
 
Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
BROWN, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

 
 

MACY, Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
an order allowing the claim of Kenneth A. Kemp, appellee, for benefits provided 
by the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act for a nonfatal heart attack which 
occurred during the course of his employment.

 
 

[¶2.]     The only question to be 
answered by this Court is whether there was sufficient competent medical 
testimony before the trial court to find a direct causal connection between 
appellee's exertion and his cardiac condition. We find that there was such 
evidence and affirm the order of the trial court.

 
 

[¶3.]     On July 24, 1984, as 
appellee was driving his tractor-trailer in the course of his employment, the 
stabilizing bar on the unit malfunctioned. After spending anxious moments 
wrestling with the wheel, appellee was unable to keep the truck from going into 
the ditch. About 30 minutes after the accident occurred, appellee suffered a 
heart attack.

 
 

[¶4.]     Appellant now contends 
that appellee failed to meet his burden of proof as to medical causation under § 
27-12-603(b), W.S. 1977 (June 1983 Replacement). We have previously said that to 
meet this requirement the claimant must establish by competent medical evidence 
a direct causal connection between the exertion and the myocardial infarction. 
State ex rel. Worker's Compensation 
Division v. McCarley, 
Wyo., 590 P.2d 1333 
(1979).

 
 

[¶5.]     In Kaan v. State ex rel.    Wyoming  Worker's Compensation Division, Wyo., 689 P.2d 1387, 1389 
(1984), we held that the causal connection requirement is met if a medical 
expert testifies

"* * * that it is more 
probable than not that work exertion or stress contributed in a material degree 
to the precipitation, aggravation, or acceleration of a myocardial 
infarction."

 
 

[¶6.]     In this regard, the 
following is an excerpt from the deposition of Dr. Robert James Davis II, the 
cardiologist who was appellee's only medical witness:

"Q. Based on your 
knowledge as a cardiologist and on your knowledge of these records that you have 
reviewed, do you have an opinion, based on reasonable medical certainty, as to 
whether the stress involved in this truck accident could be a probable cause of 
the immediate probable cause of Mr. Kemp's myocardial infarction? 

"A. I have an opinion. 
And my opinion is that probable is a heavier word than I would use. And I would 
have to say that he suffered a heart attack in and around the events of having 
been involved in a truck accident, and there is a possible causal relationship, 
due to the background of the known arteriosclerosis, and that I think to deny 
that relationship would be foolish.

"But I think for me to 
say probable cause would also be saying more than I can absolutely 
say.

"Q. * * 
*

"Do you, in your opinion, 
see it as a likely cause? Is that a better word?

 
 
* * * * * 
*

 
 
"THE WITNESS: I don't 
think that I can say that's the likely cause, because I just don't know the 
physiologic way that happens. I think there is an undeniable 
relationship.

"I think there is a - 
there is something that happened in this man's day that does not happen every 
day in the course of his job, and that in and around that unusual event he had a 
heart attack.

"And we know that 
stressful situations sometimes seem related to heart attacks. And to say that 
there is absolutely no relationship between those two things would be 
incredulous."

 
 

[¶7.]     The direct causal 
connection requirement is not whether or not the truck accident was the probable 
cause of appellee's myocardial infarction, but whether, as stated in Kaan,

"* * * it is more 
probable than not that work exertion or stress contributed in a material degree 
to the precipitation, aggravation, or acceleration of a myocardial infarction." 
Kaan v. State ex rel.   
 Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Division, 689 P.2d  at 1389.

 
 

[¶8.]     The cardiologist was 
not asked the question in such a manner that he could recite the magic words in 
a concise affirmative opinion statement. His statements, however, when 
considered together, satisfy the holding in the Kaan case:

"* * * I think there is 
an undeniable relationship.

"I think there is a - 
there is something that happened in this man's day that does not happen every 
day in the course of his job, and that in and around that unusual event he had a 
heart attack.

"And we know that 
stressful situations sometimes seem related to heart attacks. And to say that 
there is absolutely no relationship between those two things would be 
incredulous."

 
 

[¶9.]     We, therefore, affirm 
the order of the trial court.