Case Title: LESLIE L. YOTHER V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-07-0041

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
LESLIE L. YOTHER V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2007 WY 192173 P.3d 356Case Number: S-07-0041Decided: 12/11/2007
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
LESLIE 
L. YOTHER,Appellant(Petitioner),v.STATE OF 
WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY 
AND COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,Appellee(Respondent).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofTetonCounty

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

David M. 
Gosar, Jackson, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven 
R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant 
Attorney General.            

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

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]  After sustaining a work related injury, 
Leslie Yother applied for worker's compensation benefits.  The Workers' Compensation Division 
(Division) awarded him medical, temporary total disability and impairment 
benefits.  Later, after undergoing 
surgery for the injury, Mr. Yother applied for permanent partial disability 
(PPD) benefits.  The Division denied 
his claim, Mr. Yother objected and, after a hearing, the Office of 
Administrative Hearings (OAH) also denied the claim.  Mr. Yother then sought review in district 
court, which affirmed the denial.  Mr. Yother appealed to this Court, 
claiming the denial was in error because it was based on the unsupported, 
arbitrary and erroneous conclusion that he failed to meet his burden of proving 
that he could not return to work at a wage comparable to or higher than the 
amount he was earning at the time of his injury.  We reverse.  

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]  Mr. Yother states the issues for this 
Court's determination as follows:

 
 
I.          
Is the order denying permanent partial disability benefits supported by 
substantial evidence and/or is the decision arbitrary and capricious?  Specifically, did the OAH err when it 
failed to consider Mr. Yother's overtime earnings in its calculations, and 
consequently, mistakenly concluded that jobs were available paying a comparable 
amount to his pre-injury employment earnings?

 
 
II.         
Did the OAH err as a matter of law when it concluded that Mr. Yother 
could return to work at a comparable wage to the wage he was earning at the time 
of injury?

 
 
The 
Division asserts the OAH decision was in accordance with the law and was not 
arbitrary or capricious.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  Mr. Yother injured his right shoulder on 
October 19, 1999, when the water truck he was driving as an employee of S&L 
Industrial (S&L) rolled over.  
He filed a report of injury with the Division and received worker's 
compensation benefits.  He returned 
to work following the accident but continued to have pain in his shoulder.  In March of 2001, Mr. Yother underwent 
surgery to repair the damage to his shoulder.  Eventually, the Division assigned Mr. 
Yother a 13% whole body impairment rating.  
He was released to return to work with lifting restrictions, but was 
unable to find employment.

 
 
[¶4]  In April of 2003, Mr. Yother applied for 
PPD benefits.  The Division obtained 
a vocational evaluation, which reflected three different figures for Mr. 
Yother's hourly wage at the time of the injury: $9.87 per hour based upon the 
employer's report of injury; $18.00 per hour, the amount Mr. Yother claimed he 
was making; and $12.25 per hour, the rate calculated by the evaluator based upon 
figures provided to her by S&L. The evaluator reached the following 
conclusions concerning the availability of jobs with Mr. Yother's work 
experience and restrictions:  1) 
five jobs that paid 95% or more than $9.87 per hour; 2) four jobs that paid 95% 
or more than $12.25 per hour; and 3) no jobs that paid 95% or more than $18.00 
per hour.  The Division denied Mr. 
Yother's claim for PPD benefits.

 
 
[¶5]  Mr. Yother objected and the matter was 
set for hearing before the OAH.  At 
the time of the hearing, the parties agreed the 1999 version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 27-14-405(h)(i) governed the case.  
The statute provided in relevant part as follows: 

 
 

(h)              
  An injured employee awarded 
permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a permanent disability award 
subject to the following terms and conditions:

            
(i) The injured employee is because of the injury, unable to return to 
employment at a comparable or higher wage than the employee was earning at the 
time of injury;1  

 
 
Applying 
this provision, the hearing examiner concluded that Mr. Yother failed to meet 
his burden of proving that he was unable to return to work at a comparable or 
higher wage than he was earning at the time of the injury.  Specifically, the hearing examiner 
concluded that Mr. Yother was earning between $9.87 and $12.25 per hour and, 
according to the vocational evaluation, jobs were available with earnings in 
that range.  The district court 
affirmed the OAH order.  

         

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]  In an appeal from a district court's 
decision on a petition for review of administrative action, we afford no 
deference to the district court's decision and, instead, review the case as if 
it came directly from the agency.  
Bonsell v. State ex rel. Wyo. 
Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 2006 WY 114, ¶ 7, 142 P.3d 686, 688 (Wyo. 
2006).  Judicial review of agency 
decisions is limited to those considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2007), which provides in pertinent 
part:

                                                                                        

            
(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:

 
 
            
. . . .

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

 
 
     (A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

 
 
            
. . . .

 
 
     (E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.

 
 
Additionally, 
we have said:

            

            
We do not defer to the agency's determination on issues of law; instead, 
we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying 
the law.  

 
 

Bonsell, ¶ 9, 
142 P.3d  at 689 (citations omitted).Top 
of Form

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      Mr. Yother claims 
the hearing examiner's ruling was not supported by substantial evidence, was 
arbitrary and capricious, and was legally incorrect because it failed to 
consider the overtime pay he regularly earned while employed by S&L when 
calculating his earnings.  Mr. 
Yother claims this omission led the hearing examiner to erroneously conclude 
that there were jobs available at a wage higher than, or comparable to, what he 
was earning at the time he was injured.  
Mr. Yother asserts that the evidence showed his earnings with overtime 
pay were $14.12 per hour and there were no jobs available at a comparable or 
higher wage.

 
 
[¶8] The 
hearing examiner made the following findings concerning Mr. Yother's earnings at 
the time of his injury:

 
 
16.  . . .  The evidence also established there is a 
question as to the exact amount Yother was earning at the time of his 
injury.  Yother claimed he was 
earning $14.80 an hour at the time of his injury based upon the monthly wage 
computation for temporary total disability.  The Report of Injury indicated Yother 
was paid $9.87 an hour and the vocational evaluation indicated Yother was 
earning $12.25 an hour based on information obtained from S&L.  The vocational evaluation determined 
there were five jobs that paid a comparable wage to the report of injury wage 
and four jobs that paid a comparable wage to the wage information from 
S&L.

 
 
Thus, 
the hearing examiner's findings reflected that evidence was presented showing 
three different figures for Mr. Yother's hourly earnings in 1999 and available 
jobs paying a wage comparable to or higher than only two of those figures.      

 
 
[¶9]  Based upon his findings, the hearing 
examiner reached the following conclusions of law:

 
 
5.         Yother has 
failed to meet his burden and has failed to establish he is unable to return to 
work at a wage comparable to or higher than the wage he was paid at the time of 
his injury as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(i) (LEXIS 1999).  Yother claimed he was earning $14.80 an 
hour at the time of his injury based upon the monthly wage computation for 
temporary total disability.  The 
Report of Injury indicated Yother was paid $9.87 an hour and the vocational 
evaluation indicated Yother was earning $12.25 per hour based on information 
obtained from S&L.  The 
vocational evaluation determined there were five jobs that paid a comparable 
wage to the report of injury wage and four jobs that paid a comparable wage to 
the wage information from S&L.  
There are jobs available within Yother's limitations that pay a wage 
comparable to his wage at the time of his injury and PPD benefits are therefore 
denied.

 
 
[¶10]  Our review of the record discloses two 
difficulties with the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions.  First, the findings and conclusions do 
not explain why the hearing examiner disregarded Mr. Yother's claim that he was 
earning $14.12 per hour at the time of his injury, which was apparently based 
upon the earnings sheet from the employer introduced at the hearing as well as 
the Division's own monthly wage computation for temporary total disability.  Without explanation, such as a 
conclusion that the evidence was not credible, the hearing examiner focused 
instead on the evidence that Mr. Yother was earning $9.87 and $12.25, wages at 
which jobs were available.  On this 
basis, the hearing examiner concluded that Mr. Yother had failed to meet his 
burden of proving that he was unable to return to work at a comparable or higher 
wage than he was earning at the time of the injury.     

       

[¶11]  Second, and perhaps more importantly, 
the $12.25 per hour wage was calculated by the vocational evaluator based upon 
information obtained from Mr. Yother's employer, which was consistent with the 
earnings sheet received into evidence at the hearing, and that calculation 
appears to be incorrect.  The 
vocational evaluation stated that according to an employer interview, Mr. Yother 
earned $790 the week prior to his injury and worked a 56-hour week.  The earnings sheet portrays the same 
information.  From this information, 
the evaluator concluded "this is a salary of approximately $12.25 per 
hour."  Given that 790 divided by 56 
equals 14.10, not 12.25, it is unclear how the evaluator arrived at the $12.25 
per hour wage.  It appears that the 
hearing examiner's finding that Mr. Yother was earning $12.25 per hour at the 
time of his injury was based on the vocational evaluator's miscalculation. 2       

 
 
[¶12]  We have said that an agency ruling must 
contain sufficient factual findings to enable this Court to understand the basis 
of the hearing examiner's conclusions.  
State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. 
Legarda, 2003 WY 130, ¶ 12, 77 P.3d 708, 712 (Wyo. 2003); Newman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. 
and Safety Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶ 16, 49 P.3d 163, 169 (Wyo. 2002).  Where a ruling does not contain such 
findings as would permit us to follow the agency's reasoning from the 
evidentiary facts to its legal conclusions, the ruling must be set aside.  Id.  Here, it is not clear from the findings 
or the conclusions why the hearing examiner disregarded the evidence that Mr. 
Yother was making approximately $14.00 per hour at the time he was injured.  Absent some stated reason for 
disregarding that evidence, we are unable to follow the hearing examiner's 
conclusion that jobs were available at a wage comparable to or higher than the 
amount Mr. Yother was earning at the time he was injured.  

 
 
[¶13]  Moreover, it appears from the record 
that the hearing officer's ruling was based on the vocational evaluator's 
erroneous conclusion that information received from the employer indicated that 
Mr. Yother was earning $12.25 per hour at the time he was injured.  The failure of any essential finding to 
be supported by substantial evidence results in an arbitrary and capricious 
decision and must be reversed.  Pino v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & 
Comp. Div., 996 P.2d 679, 683 (Wyo. 2000).  This Court has the authority to adjust 
factual findings based on the overwhelming evidence in the record and to correct 
errors of law.  State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. 
Div. v. Gerrard, 2001 WY 7, ¶ 17, 17 P.3d 20, 27 (Wyo. 2001).  Based upon undisputed evidence in the 
record, the information received from the employer showed Mr. Yother was earning 
$14.10 per hour rather than the $12.25 calculated by the vocational 
evaluator.  Thus, the hearing 
examiner's conclusion that Mr. Yother failed to meet his burden of proving that 
no jobs were available at a comparable or higher wage was arbitrary and 
capricious and not supported by substantial evidence.  Under these circumstances, the hearing 
examiner's order cannot stand absent some explanation as to why he disregarded 
the hourly pay of approximately $14.00.

 
 
[¶14]  The district court's order affirming the 
hearing examiner's order is reversed.  
The case is remanded to the district court for remand to the OAH with 
instructions to enter an order awarding benefits  consistent with this 
opinion.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Prior to the 
contested case hearing, the parties were in agreement that the 2000 version of 
the statute applied.  That version 
of § 27-14-405 (h)(i) provides:  

 
 
(h)  An injured employee awarded permanent 
partial impairment benefits may apply for a permanent disability award subject 
to the following terms and conditions:

(i)  The injured employee is because of the 
injury, unable to return to employment at a wage that is at least ninety-five 
percent (95%) of the monthly gross earnings the employee was earning at the time 
of injury.

 
 

2Contrary to 
Mr. Yother's claim on appeal, the hearing examiner did not fail to consider 
overtime. The hearing examiner relied upon a wage of $12.25 per hour, which was 
higher than Mr. Yother's base pay of $9.87 shown in the report of injury.  To arrive at the $12.25 per hour wage, 
the hearing examiner must have considered overtime.  However, as we have discussed, it 
appears the hearing examiner did rely on an incorrect overtime pay 
rate.