Case Title: Hampton v. All Field Service, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 86-106

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1986-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hampton v. All Field Service, Inc.1986 WY 183726 P.2d 98Case Number: 86-106Decided: 10/09/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming
Stephen Lee HAMPTON, 
Appellant (Employee/Claimant),

v.

ALL FIELD SERVICE, INC., 
Appellee (Employer/Respondent).

Appeal from District 
Court of Fremont County, Elizabeth A. Kail, J.

Steven M. Avery, 
Riverton, for 
appellant.

Charles E. 
Hamilton, Riverton, for appellee. 

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

URBIGKIT, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This court here 
considers a Worker's Compensation/back injury/incurrence or aggravation claim by 
affirming the trial court denial, the issue being sufficiency of the evidence to 
sustain decision.

[¶2.]     Stephen Hampton 
(claimant) went to work for All Field Service, Inc. (employer) on August 2, 
1984, and had a physical examination September 14. He had had a previous back 
injury in April, 1984, resulting in a Worker's Compensation claim, which fact 
was not communicated to his new employer in employment or examination 
inquiry.

[¶3.]     On November 26, 1984, 
Hampton claimed a new back injury from lifting a stuck van door. No report of 
the injury was then made to the employer, or thereafter within the 24 hours as a 
stated time requirement for claims in § 27-12-502, W.S. 1977 (1983 
Replacement).

[¶4.]     Calling in sick the 
next day with "cramps" and "diarrhea," he stayed in bed, and on the following 
day went to a doctor, thereafter filing a Worker's Compensation claim for a back 
disability and injury. He did not return to employment with that 
company.

[¶5.]     The employer contested 
the claim on the failure to report, failure to advise of prior injury, and 
failure to prove injury during the period of employment.

[¶6.]     Upon trial in December, 
the court denied the claim, finding that the claimant had failed to sustain his 
present injury burden of proof, since a prior thoracic spinal injury had existed 
antedating current employment. A motion made for a new trial pursuant to Rule 
59, W.R.C.P. was resolved by order of the court on April 15, 1986 by its 
finding:

"That in the original 
trial of this matter, Employee/Claimant failed to sustain his burden of proof 
that his present symptoms or condition were as a result of injury related to his 
employment with Employer/Respondent, nor was any purported injury a result of a 
previous injury aggravated by an accident or other injury as a result of his 
employment."

[¶7.]     The record presents a 
factual conflict, causing inquiry whether a compensable new injury or an 
aggravated prior injury is documented by sufficient facts for this court to hold 
that the trial court decision was not founded upon substantial 
evidence.

[¶8.]     Factually invoked was 
the contention by claimant of "severe lumbar strain & cervical. Lifting door 
of semi van. Carried truck tire on shoulders. Neck, lower back," as affected or 
related to his nondisclosed prior Worker's Compensation claim and failure to 
report within 24 hours.

[¶9.]     Addressing the issue in 
trial testimony were claimant, his wife, and a Lander chiropractor for medical 
testimony. Employer called five witnesses: a Riverton chiropractor, employer's 
manager, and three employees who were in the work-area vicinity or otherwise 
knowledgable generally about the claimed incident.

[¶10.]  We approach appeal disposition with 
recognition of three rules of decision:

[¶11.]  (1) The law is liberally construed in 
favor of the employee, Lerch v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division, 
Wyo., 714 P.2d 754 (1986); Conn v. Ed Wederski Construction Company, Wyo., 668 P.2d 649 (1983); Matter of Johner, Wyo., 643 P.2d 932 (1982); Mor, Inc. v. 
Haverlock, Wyo., 566 P.2d 219 (1977);

[¶12.]  (2) The burden is on the claimant to 
prove the facts required for claim allowance, Alco of Wyoming v. Baker, Wyo., 
651 P.2d 266 (1982); Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., Wyo., 526 P.2d 1197 
(1974); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, Wyo., 474 P.2d 297 (1970); 
and

[¶13.]  (3) The decision of the trial court will 
be sustained if supported by substantial evidence, Shaw v. Lewmont Drilling 
Associates, Inc., Wyo., 694 P.2d 117 (1985); Pacific Power and Light v. Parsons, 
Wyo., 692 P.2d 226 (1984); Lindbloom v. Teton International, Wyo., 684 P.2d 1388 
(1984). 

[¶14.]  It may well be that procedural factors of 
the neglected advice of prior back conditions and resulting Worker's 
Compensation claim and belated notice after the claimed incident were considered 
by the trial court, but clearly supporting substantive evidence favoring the 
trial court's decision determines that this court will not now re-try contested 
facts by a second review through appellate reconsideration. Randell v. Wyoming 
State Treasurer ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division, Wyo., 671 P.2d 303 (1983); Creek v. Town of Hulett, Wyo., 657 P.2d 353 
(1983).

[¶15.]  Affirmed.