Case Title: WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIV. v. HENRIKSEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIV. v. HENRIKSEN2001 WY 4221 P.3d 1185Case Number: 00-242Decided: 04/24/2001

 APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2001 

 
STATE OF 
WYOMING ex rel.

WYOMING 
WORKERS' SAFETY AND

COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,

Appellant(Petitioner),

v.

VIOLET 
K. HENRIKSEN,

Appellee(Respondent).

  

Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

The 
Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald 
L. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Assistant 
Attorney General  

 Representing 
Appellee:

            
R. Douglas Dumbrill of Lubnau & Bailey LLC, Gillette, Wyoming  

 Before 
LEHMAN, C.J.; GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.; and DAN SPANGLER, 
D.J.

 

            
SPANGLER, District Judge (Retired).

 [¶1]     This is an appeal by 
the State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division  (the division) from a 
trial court order which reversed the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 
Order Denying Claim issued by a hearing examiner.  The trial court found that the hearing 
examiner's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and Violet K. 
Henriksen (the employee) was entitled to a modification of her award and to a 
grant of temporary total disability.  
We affirm the trial court's order.

ISSUES

[¶2]      The employee 
states this issue:

Did the 
Hearing Examiner correctly find that Henriksen failed to prove an increase in 
her incapacity due solely to her work injury?

The 
division identifies these issues:

1.)  Was the District Court's decision to 
reverse the Hearing Officer incorrect as a matter of law?

2.)  Was the Appellee entitled to a 
modification of award due to an increase in incapacity under W.S. § 
27-14-605(a)?

FACTS

[¶3]      The employee was 
operating a roller over rough ground in July of 1997 when she experienced neck 
and back pain.  She was placed on 
temporary total disability from July 23, 1997, through July 15, 1998.  On July 11, 1998, Dr. Terry A. Brown 
examined the employee and diagnosed marked myofascial disease in the bilateral 
trapezii and upper back with marked anxiety/psychological overlay.  He rated her permanent impairment at 
five percent, and she accepted a five percent permanent partial disability 
award.

[¶4]      Shortly 
thereafter, the employee moved from Wyoming to Minnesota.  She consulted Dr. John C. Vidoloff, who 
diagnosed her with thoracic outlet syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, and left 
L4-5 radiculopathy.  In his opinion, 
she had this condition when Dr. Brown examined her in July of 1998.  He advised her not to work and certified 
her for temporary total disability from October 21, 1998, through February 8, 
1999.  It is that temporary total 
disability claim which is in issue here.

[¶5]      Dr. Vidoloff 
subsequently agreed with Dr. Bradley Vilims that the employee was suffering from 
cervical facet syndrome.  Dr. Vilims 
successfully treated the employee with injections and therapy, and the employee 
experienced a substantial improvement in her condition.

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶6]      The standard for 
appellate review of agency decisions is contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999).  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.

Section 
16-3-114(c)(ii).  This court accords 
no special deference to the findings of the trial court.  We review the case as if it came 
directly from the hearing examiner.  
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Brewbaker, 
972 P.2d 962, 964 (Wyo. 
1999).   Substantial evidence 
is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions.  Id.  This court will set aside an 
agency's findings of fact only if they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming 
weight of the evidence.  
Id.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      The employee 
filed this claim for temporary total disability pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-605(a) (LEXIS 1999), which provides in pertinent 
part:

(a)  If 
a determination is made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits 
under this act, an application may be made to the division by any party within 
four (4) years from the date of the last payment for additional benefits or for 
a modification of the amount of benefits on the ground of increase or decrease 
of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or fraud. 

The 
employee's theory is that she experienced an increase of incapacity due solely 
to the injury when Dr. Vidoloff ordered her not to work.  The hearing examiner concluded that 
there was no increased incapacity, particularly because her physical condition 
had not deteriorated since the time she was rated for permanent partial 
disability.

[¶8]      In the case of 
Parnell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division, 735 P.2d 1367, 1368 (Wyo. 
1987), this court held that a certification of temporary total disability can 
support a finding of increased incapacity, regardless of whether the permanent 
partial disability percentage has increased.  Similarly, in the case of 
Hernandez 
v. Laramie County School District No. 1, 8 P.3d 318, 323 (Wyo. 2000), 
this 
court found that the division erred as a matter of law in requiring an employee 
to prove an increase in permanent incapacity in order to establish a claim for 
temporary total disability under § 27-14-605(a).

[¶9]      The division 
contends that a physician's certification of temporary total disability does not 
automatically establish an increase in incapacity.  We agree that the physician's 
certification must be considered in the light of all the evidence.  However, in this case, there is nothing 
to indicate that Dr. Vidoloff was mistaken in ordering the employee not to 
work.  Her condition improved after 
the period of rest and the treatment by Dr. Vilims.  Therefore, under the circumstances of 
this case, the hearing examiner's decision was unsupported by substantial 
evidence and was not in accordance with our legal conclusion that increased 
incapacity can result when an employee follows the order of her medical provider 
not to work for a reasonable time in order to promote recovery from an 
injury.

[¶10]   A decision to the contrary could 
place employees in a dilemma.  They 
can lose all rights to compensation if they refuse to submit to medical or 
surgical treatment reasonably essential to promote their recovery.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-407 (LEXIS 
1999).  In this regard, it is 
important for employees to follow the directives of their physicians that they 
not work while recovering from an injury.  
But the employees will be discouraged from following that course if the 
physicians' certification of temporary total disability cannot be used to 
support a modification of the award on grounds of increased incapacity when rest 
is prescribed as part of the treatment.  
Thus, the policy established by this ruling may promote an improvement in 
the health of injured employees by use of conservative treatment less expensive 
than surgery.

[¶11]   We affirm the trial court's 
decision granting modification of the award due to increased 
incapacity.