Case Title: Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.1999 WY 70980 P.2d 332Case Number: 98-118Decided: 05/25/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: CHARLES D. LEAVITT, Appellant 
(Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE OF WYOMING, ex 
rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee 
(Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court of Teton County Honorable D. Terry Rogers, Judge

Robert E. 
Schroth, Jackson, Wyoming, Representing Appellant.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General; Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney 
General, Representing Appellee.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* 
JJ.

* retired November 2, 
1998.

Golden, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Charles Leavitt 
appeals from the district court's order affirming a hearing examiner's denial of 
worker's compensation benefits for Leavitt's neck injury. After hearing 
testimony from several doctors and Leavitt in a contested case hearing, the 
hearing examiner determined that, while Leavitt's shoulder injury was incurred 
in the performance of his employment, his neck injury was not. We uphold factual 
determinations of administrative agencies, including the determination that an 
injury occurred outside the course of employment, if they are supported by 
substantial evidence. The Division's doctor and Leavitt's own physician, once 
apprised of Leavitt's post-operative activities, opined that Leavitt's neck 
injury was not workrelated, but was likely sustained when he fell while pushing 
his wife's car out of the snow. Substantial evidence supports the hearing 
examiner's decision; therefore, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant Leavitt 
presents this statement of the issue:

Whether the 
record contains substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's 
determination that Claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of 
his employment.

The Appellee 
Division responds:

The Employee 
injured his shoulder lifting buckets of rock at work. Six months later, after 
two intervening accidents, his doctors discovered a neck 
injury.

A. Was the 
denial of benefits for the Employee's neck injury supported by substantial 
evidence?

FACTS

[¶3]      Leavitt was 
employed as a carpenter's helper in November of 1995. On November 6, 1995, while 
carrying buckets of rock weighing between one hundred and one hundred and fifty 
pounds, Leavitt was injured. On November 17, 1995, Leavitt filed a report of 
occupational injury stating that he suffered an injury to his right shoulder 
while carrying fireplace rock in five gallon buckets. Leavitt sought medical 
treatment and was eventually referred to Dr. James Champa, who ordered testing 
for a possible rotator cuff tear. When that testing came up negative, Dr. Champa 
referred Leavitt to Dr. Franklin Rivers, who diagnosed a problem with Leavitt's 
AC joint. Leavitt underwent an operation on his shoulder for this condition on 
January 22, 1996.

[¶4]      Immediately after 
surgery, Leavitt continued to experience pain in his shoulder. On February 8, 
1996, Leavitt went to the hospital emergency room to seek care from Dr. Martha 
S. Hageman. Leavitt reported that he re-injured his shoulder and was 
experiencing pain in the back of his neck. According to Dr. Hageman, Leavitt 
told her he was pushing his wife's car out of the snow and felt a pain go 
through his shoulder and neck as they were being strained.

[¶5]      After undergoing 
physical therapy, Leavitt returned to the care of Dr. Champa in April of 1996. 
Dr. Champa determined Leavitt's condition had not improved and suspected an 
injury to Leavitt's neck. An MRI of Leavitt's neck indicated a herniated disk at 
the C5-6 level. Eventually, Dr. Kenneth Lambert performed a subacromial 
decompression of Leavitt's right shoulder on July 30, 1996, and performed a 
cervical fusion on Leavitt's neck on September 10, 1996.

[¶6]      The Division 
denied benefits for Leavitt's neck and arm problems on November 22, 1996, 
pursuant to a medical file review performed by Dr. Robert G. Weiner. Leavitt 
requested a hearing on the denial. After a contested case hearing, the hearing 
examiner approved benefits for the shoulder injury, but denied benefits for the 
neck injury. Leavitt filed a petition for review of the administrative action 
with the District Court of Teton County, Wyoming, Ninth Judicial District. The 
district court affirmed the hearing examiner's decision, and Leavitt timely 
filed a notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      This case comes 
to us on appeal from the district court's decision to affirm the hearing 
examiner's denial of benefits. We review "agency action as if the appeal came 
directly to the supreme court from the agency," according no deference to the 
district court's decision. RM v. Dept. Of Family Services, 953 P.2d 477, 481 
(Wyo. 1998).

[¶8]      The sole issue 
Leavitt presents for our review is whether substantial evidence supports the 
hearing examiner's denial of benefits for his neck injury. Judicial review of 
agency action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 
1997):

(c) To the 
extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court 
shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and 
statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of 
an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review 
the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be 
taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court 
shall:

* * 
*

(iii) Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

* * 
*

(E) Unsupported 
by substantial evidence . . . .

See also W. R. 
A. P. 12.09(a). This Court reviews a hearing examiner's finding that an injury 
occurred outside the course of employment using the substantial evidence 
test:

Whether or not 
an employee's injury occurred in the course of his employment is a question of 
fact. We review an administrative agency's findings of fact by applying the 
substantial evidence standard. Our task is to examine the entire record to 
determine whether substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's 
findings. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner 
when substantial evidence supports his decision. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions.

DeWall v. State 
of Wyoming, ex rel. Workers' Safety & Compensation Div., 960 P.2d 502, 503 
(Wyo. 1998) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      In his brief 
Leavitt argues that his testimony, the testimony of his treating physicians, 
Drs. Champa and Lambert, and his medical records all indicate that he sustained 
his neck injury while carrying rock at work. Just as he apparently did before 
the district court, Leavitt "basically reargues factual issues determined 
adversely to him by the hearing examiner at the contested case phase . . . [and] 
seeks a de novo review of the hearing." 

[¶10]   Dr. Lambert provided a written 
deposition for the hearing, and Dr. Champa testified telephonically. Dr. Champa 
and Dr. Lambert were of the opinion that both Leavitt's neck and shoulder 
condition arose from his employment. However, during cross-examination, Dr. 
Champa testified that he was not aware Leavitt was treated by Dr. Hageman after 
re-injuring his shoulder while pushing a car. During cross-examination, the 
following exchange occurred: 

Q: Okay. And if 
after pushing out this car out of the snow, that Dr. Hageman records as 
happening in February of 1996, after you operated on him, if after that time Mr. 
Leavitt is complaining of paresthesia in his right arm, would that change your 
opinion in regards to the attribution of his C5-6 condition to a work-related 
injury?

A: I'd have to 
answer that yes.

[¶11]   Leavitt contends that this 
statement actually supports his position. However, Leavitt failed to clarify Dr. 
Champa's response on redirect, and we will not presume Dr. Champa did not mean 
what he said. Taken at face value, the transcript reveals that Dr. Champa 
changed his opinion concerning the cause of Leavitt's neck injury after learning 
of the injury Leavitt sustained while pushing a car.

[¶12]   Leavitt also contends that Dr. 
Weiner's report is not supported by the evidence. He points to several 
statements from Dr. Weiner's report as inconsistent and claims that the report 
implies that pushing the car worsened a work-related neck injury. Dr. Weiner's 
report contains the following conclusion:

Therefore, I 
would apportion 70% of the cervical disk pathology to normal development and 
physiologic changes and 30% to the aggravation of his work. I feel that the 
episode of pushing the car was essentially the "final straw on the camel's back" 
and that if the examinee had not pushed the car on that day, it would only have 
been a matter of time before his cervical symptoms and radicular symptoms came 
to fruition. Therefore, while pushing the car was the final event that brought 
on the examinee's symptoms, it was not specifically the "cause" of the disk 
bulge. This bulge was due to normal developmental and physiologic changes 
aggravated by the examinee's strenuous activities.

After careful 
review, we cannot say that Dr. Weiner's report contains the implications or 
inconsistencies Leavitt claims.

[¶13]   Finally, Leavitt contends that Dr. 
Weiner's report should not be considered substantial evidence that Leavitt's 
condition is not compensable because Dr. Weiner never examined him. Dr. Lambert 
also found fault with Dr. Weiner's report because "Dr. Weiner has never examined 
the patient to verify any of his conclusions." Although we understand the 
concern expressed by Leavitt and Dr. Lambert, we note that Dr. Weiner's 
testimony was corroborated by Dr. Champa after he learned of Leavitt's visit to 
Dr. Hageman. The district court's decision bears repeating 
here:

This Court 
cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency and it is not within the 
prerogative of this Court to perform duties as assigned by law to the 
Administrative Agency. McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1980). The 
hearing examiner is in the best position to judge the demeanor, truth and 
veracity of witnesses and to decide which evidence is most dependable. State ex 
rel, Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Colvin, 681 P.2d 269, 271 (Wyo. 
1984). This Court cannot substitute its opinion as to the weight and credibility 
of evidence for that determination made by the agency. Gilmore v. Oil and Gas 
Conservation Commission, 642 P.2d 773 (Wyo. 1982). The ultimate weight to be 
given to evidence submitted to an agency as a trier of fact is to be determined 
by the agency in light of the expertise and experience, in this case of the 
hearing examiner, in such matters. Telstar Communications, Inc. v. Rule 
Radiophone Service, Inc., 621 P.2d 241 (Wyo. 1980).

[¶14]   Our task is not to reweigh the 
evidence. Wyo. Steel & Fab., Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 876 (Wyo. 1994). 
When faced with a substantial evidence question, we merely examine the record to 
determine if substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner's conclusions. 
Id. Medical evidence in the record and Dr. Weiner's report, which was 
corroborated by Dr. Champa's testimony on cross-examination, all support the 
hearing examiner's factual findings. We affirm the hearing examiner's decision 
to deny benefits for the neck injury.

CONCLUSION

[¶15]   Although Leavitt argues mightily 
for what amounts to de novo review of the facts in this case, our standard of 
review limits us to review of the record for substantial evidence which supports 
the hearing examiner's decision. Finding an abundance of evidence to support 
that decision, we affirm.