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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
HERMOSILLO v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2002 WY 17558 P.3d 924Case Number: 01-251Decided: 12/06/2002
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                            

 

JAVIER 
HERMOSILLO,

 

Appellant(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee(Respondent).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Donald 
L. Painter, Casper, Wyoming

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Hoke 
MacMillan, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; 
Gerald L. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Assistant 
Attorney General

 

 

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

 

 

*Chief 
Justice at time of expedited conference

 

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]           
Appellant 
Javier Hermosillo was denied permanent partial disability benefits after a 
hearing examiner found that Hermosillo had failed to prove that he could not 
return to work at a comparable wage, and had actively sought work as required by 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h).  He 
appeals, contending that substantial evidence does not support these 
findings.  Our review of the record 
indicates otherwise, and we affirm.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]           
Hermosillo 
presents this statement of the issues for our review:

 

1. 
Whether Appellant failed to satisfy the job search requirements in Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-405(h)(iii).

 

2.  Whether Appellant was earning $8.00 per 
hour or $9.00 per hour at the time of injury.

 

The 
State phrases the issues as follows:

 

I. 
Whether the Hearing Examiner erred in finding that Appellant failed to prove 
that he was, because of his compensable injury, unable to return to employment 
at a wage comparable to or higher than the wage he was earning at the time of 
his injury.

 

II. 
Whether the Hearing Examiner erred in finding that Appellant failed to prove 
that he had actively sought suitable work, considering his health, education, 
training and experience.

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
Hermosillo 
sustained a compensable back injury in 1997.  The Division of Workers' Compensation 
(Division) paid benefits, including benefits for three surgeries, and assigned a 
permanent partial impairment rating of 15%.  On August 5, 2000, Hermasillo applied 
for permanent disability benefits as permitted by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405. 
Under the statute, Hermosillo would receive the award if he could prove the 
injury prevented him from returning to employment at a comparable or higher wage 
than that being earned at the time of injury, and he had actively sought 
suitable work, considering his health, education, training and experience. 

 

[¶4]           
Hermosillo 
underwent a vocational evaluation.  
Using $8.00 per hour as the wage he was earning at the time of injury, 
the evaluator concluded that Hermosillo could return to work at a comparable or 
higher wage.  The Division denied 
the award application, and a contested case hearing was held.   Hermosillo testified that he was 
paid an additional $1.00 per hour for opening the business and was, therefore, 
earning $9.00 per hour at the time of injury, and at this higher rate, the 
Division had erred in finding work available at a comparable rate.  

 

[¶5]           
Although 
Hermosillo's physician placed restrictions and limitations on lifting, 
Hermosillo was released to work, and applied for positions in 1999 and March of 
2000.  The hearing examiner found 
that Hermosillo did not seek employment after receiving a functional capacity 
assessment in September of 2000, or after being released for work by his 
physician.  The hearing examiner 
found that Hermosillo had relied on the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 
to find employment and did not take any other steps to find employment.  Based on these findings, the hearing 
examiner concluded that Hermosillo had failed to prove that he actively sought 
employment and upheld the Division's denial of benefits.  The decision was affirmed by the 
district court.  This appeal 
followed.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

[¶6]           
A 
claimant for worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the 
essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the 
contested case hearing.  In Re 
Worker's Comp. Claim of Johnson, 2001 WY 48, ¶7, 23 P.3d 32, ¶7 (Wyo. 
2001).  We recently held that the 
substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from 
Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act contested case proceedings when factual 
findings are involved and both parties submit evidence.  Newman v. Wyoming Workers' Safety and 
Comp. Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶22, 49 P.3d 63, ¶22  (Wyo. 2002).  We further held that when only the party 
with the burden of proof submits evidence in the contested case proceeding and 
that party does not ultimately prevail, the arbitrary or capricious standard 
governs the judicial review of that agency decision.  Id. Even if the factual findings 
are found to be supported by substantial evidence, the ultimate agency decision 
may be found to be arbitrary or capricious for other reasons.  Id. at ¶23.  We do not examine the record only to 
determine if there is substantial evidence to support the board's decision, but 
we must also examine the conflicting evidence to determine if the hearing 
examiner could have reasonably made its finding and order upon all of the 
evidence before it.  Id. at 
¶24, ¶25.  Because both parties 
presented cases-in-chief, we apply the substantial evidence standard.  We afford respect and deference to a 
hearing examiner's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial 
evidence. Haagensen v. State ex rel. Workers' Comp. Div., 949 P.2d 865, 
867 (Wyo. 1997).  Our task is to 
examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported 
the hearing examiner's findings.  
State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div. v. Waggener, 946 P.2d 808, 
814 (Wyo. 1997).  We will not 
substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial 
evidence supports his decision.  
Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable 
mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions.  Id. A hearing examiner's 
conclusions of law are afforded no special deference and will be affirmed only 
if truly in accord with law.  
State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div. v. Barker, 978 P.2d 1156, 
1159 (Wyo. 1999).

 

 

 

[¶7]           
In 
his first challenge, Hermosillo disputes the hearing examiner's finding that his 
hourly rate at the time of injury was $8.00 per hour and contends that no work 
is available at a comparable wage.  
When Hermosillo was injured in 1997, his injury report stated his hourly 
income as $8.00 per hour, and during the hearing he testified that it was $9.00 
per hour.  His permanent disability 
award application contained two entries, one of which stated that his hourly 
wage at the time of injury was $9.50 per hour, and another that stated it was 
$9.00 per hour.  The Division 
contends that because Hermosillo failed to support the higher rate with pay 
stubs or written evidence, the hearing examiner reasonably relied upon the wage 
stated on the injury report.  We 
agree that this was a reasonable resolution of the conflicting statements, that 
substantial evidence supports this wage rate, and the vocational evaluation 
identified available positions at a comparable wage.

 

[¶8]           
Hermosillo 
next contends that he could rely upon the Department of Vocational 
Rehabilitation to find employment, and the hearing examiner arbitrarily 
determined that his efforts were insufficient under the statute.  The Division contends that its rules 
establish that Hermosillo's efforts were insufficient, and the hearing examiner 
properly concluded that he had not actively sought employment.  Hermosillo does not challenge the rule's 
application, and we assume it applies.  
The rule states:

 

(x) 
Actively Seeking Work.  For 
purposes of benefit eligibility an individual is actively seeking work if 
they:

(i) 
Have engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain 
work;

(ii) 
Registers for work and continues to report to a department office in effort to 
obtain suitable employment; 

(iii) 
Are available for suitable employment;

(iv) 
Furnished the department with tangible evidence of their effort; 
or

(v) 
Have contacted their employer from the time of injury to inquire if they have 
work available within their medically documented 
restrictions.

 

Wyo. 
Workers' Compensation Division Rules, Regulations & Fee Schedules, Ch. 1, 
Sec. 4(x) (Oct. 1999).

 

[¶9]           
The 
State tells us that the rule has since been changed from "or" to "and" between 
elements number four and five, and requests that we correct this previous 
version.  Again, Hermosillo presents 
no objection to this; however, we find it unnecessary to determine the rule's 
intent.  Under the statute, the 
hearing examiner was required to consider whether the evidence showed that 
Hermosillo was "actively" seeking employment.  A review of the record shows that 
Hermosillo testified that, since 1999, he had applied at ten different 
companies, but, in his opinion, had not been hired either because of his health 
or his limited ability to speak English.  
Hermosillo did not testify about the specific dates of his applications 
or provide further details about his job search efforts.  Before he applied for benefits, he 
registered with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and, at the time of 
hearing, was about to begin a part-time position for a few hours per week.  In contrast, the Division presented 
testimony by the vocational evaluator that, in 2000 and 2001, work was available 
for which Hermosillo was qualified and would accommodate the lifting 
restrictions imposed by his physician. The evaluator testified that work at a 
comparable or higher wage was available for Hermosillo despite a language 
barrier and lifting restrictions. This evidence of sporadic efforts is 
substantial evidence supporting the hearing examiner's conclusion that 
Hermosillo did not present evidence that he had engaged in any kind of a 
sustained effort to apply or train for work when he applied for benefits.  Although the evidence somewhat 
conflicts, a review of the entire record shows that the hearing examiner's 
conclusion that Hermosillo had not actively looked for work as required by the 
statute was reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious.

 

[¶10]      
Affirmed.