Case Title: Matter of Duran

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96-59

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Duran1997 WY 9930 P.2d 1250Case Number: 96-59Decided: 01/21/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

In 
the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Elmer DURAN, An

Employee of Aabalon Moving 
Services:

 

Elmer DURAN, Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

AABALON MOVING SERVICES; and 
State

of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Division,

Appellees (Respondents).

 

 

Appeal from  
District Court, Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
J.

   

Joseph D. Selby, Cheyenne, 
for Appellant.

 George Santini of Santini Law Offices, Cheyenne, 
for Appellee Aabalon Moving Services.

 William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, 
Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and 
Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for Appellee State 
ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division.

 

    Before TAYLOR, C.J.,* 
THOMAS, MACY and LEHMAN, JJ., and  STEBNER, District 
Judge.

  * Chief Justice effective July 1, 
1996.

 

    STEBNER, District 
Judge. 

 [¶1]        Appellant, Elmer Duran (Duran), 
appeals the denial of worker's compensation benefits for a herniated disk. The 
hearing examiner issued an order denying benefits, finding that Duran had failed 
to prove the compensability of his back injury. Duran subsequently filed a 
petition for review to the district court, which was certified to this court 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

  [¶2]      We affirm.

 

I. ISSUES

 

[¶3]          Duran presents the following 
issues:

 

            I. 
Whether the opinion of a witness is in itself substantial evidence on which to 
base a finding if the opinion 
assumes facts not in evidence and is the only evidence to support the 
finding.

 

            II. 
Whether the Appellant met his burden of proof that he suffered a back injury in 
the course of his employment.

 

 [¶4]        Appellee, Aabalon Moving Services, 
frames the issue as:

 

            Is there 
substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that Appellant did 
not meet his burden of proof that 
he sustained a work related back injury?

 

 [¶5]        Appellee, State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division), states the issue 
as:

 

            
Whether the record supports the Office of Administrative Hearings' 
determination that Claimant failed 
to prove that his back injury, for which he sought workers' compensation 
benefits, arose out of and in the 
course of his employment.

 

II. FACTS

 

[¶6]          Duran, a furniture mover 
employed by Aabalon Moving Services, was injured on April 22, 1994. He was 
carrying a twenty to thirty pound box when he tripped on a crack or depression 
in the cement floor and twisted his left ankle. He returned to work the next 
day, but did no heavy lifting.

 

[¶7]          On April 25, 1994, due to 
continuing discomfort, Duran went to the emergency room at United Medical Center 
West in Cheyenne, Wyoming where he was diagnosed as suffering from a sprained 
ankle and was referred for further 
treatment to Dr. Davis, an osteopathic surgeon who had previously treated Duran. 
The next day, Duran completed the Division's injury report noting only an injury 
to his left foot.

 

[¶8]          Dr. Davis examined Duran on 
April 28, 1994, at which time Duran told Dr. Davis that he had twisted his left 
ankle at work. Dr. Davis placed a short cast on Duran's left ankle, which was 
removed on May 25, 1994. Upon the recommendation of Dr. Davis, Duran contacted 
Walynn Smith (Smith), a licensed physical therapist, who treated Duran three times a week from 
May 31 until July 1, 1994. Within the first few weeks of therapy, Duran began to 
complain to Smith of pain in his hip area. On June 6, 1994, Duran filed an 
amended injury report which identified injury not only to his foot, but his leg 
and back as well.

 

[¶9]          Dr. Davis' records reflect 
that on June 8, 1994, Duran informed Dr. Davis that he had injured his back when 
he hurt his ankle, and "that it started really bothering him when he was doing 
his exercises for the ankle." Dr. Davis conducted an examination as a result of 
Duran's complaint, but found no indication that the pain was related to the work injury. Duran again 
complained to Dr. Davis of pain in his hip area on June 27, 1994. At that time, 
Dr. Davis noted that he did not believe the pain was related to the ankle injury 
and advised Duran to return to work the next week.

 

[¶10]       On July 1, 1994, the day 
after he was to return to work, Duran was examined by Dr. Joseph C. Dobson at 
the University of Wyoming Family Practice Center. Duran told Dr. Dobson that he 
"twisted his ankle at work and broke it 
as well as had a little bit of back pain." Duran also told Dr. Dobson that he 
had experienced back pain previously, but that it had healed without medical 
attention. Dr. Dobson diagnosed "low back strain."

 

[¶11]       At his follow up visit, 
Duran again reported back pain and stated his belief that the physical therapy 
had contributed to the problem. Dr. Dobson then referred Duran to a colleague, 
Dr. Michael LeFever, for osteopathic manipulation.

 

[¶12]       Dr. LeFever began his 
treatment of Duran on July 14, 1994.  
Duran told Dr. LeFever that he had "fractured" his ankle in April and had 
experienced low back pain which had "waxed and waned" since that time, but had reached a plateau. On August 
17, 1994, Dr. LeFever wrote a letter expressing his opinion, based on the July 
14th examination, that Duran's lower back pain was "aggravated by his recent 
ankle injury."

 

[¶13]       The record contains no 
further medical treatment until February 1995. At that time, Duran again visited 
the University of Wyoming Family Practice Center where an MRI and X-rays 
revealed that Duran had a herniated disk.

 

[¶14]       Although Duran received 
benefits for the ankle injury, the Division denied Duran's claims for his back 
injury. A contested case hearing on the compensability of Duran's back injury 
was held on May 3, 1995. The hearing examiner denied Duran's claim, finding that 
Duran had failed to prove that he injured his back at work. On February 6, 1996, Duran's petition for 
review of the hearing examiner's decision was certified to this court pursuant 
to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶15]       The oft-stated standard of 
review upon appeal of an administrative action is found in Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114 
(1990), which provides, in relevant part:

 

            (c) * * * 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.

 

[¶16]       With respect to this 
standard, we recently reiterated:

 

            "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."

 

  Matter of Fisher, 914 P.2d 1224, 1226 
(Wyo. 1996) (quoting Latimer v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 902 P.2d 706, 708-09 
(Wyo. 1995)). The party appealing the agency decision "`has the burden of 
proving the lack of substantial evidence to sustain the ruling of the agency.'" 
Matter of Fisher, 914 P.2d  at 1227 (quoting Jaqua v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Div., 873 P.2d 1219, 1221 (Wyo. 1994)). If the findings of fact are supported by 
substantial evidence, this court need only determine whether the conclusion is 
in accordance with law. If so, the conclusion is affirmed. Wyoming Steel & 
Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 877 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Employment Sec. 
Com'n of Wyoming v. W. Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866, 870-71 (Wyo. 
1990)).

 

IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶17]       The hearing examiner, in 
holding that Duran failed to meet his burden of proof, 
reasoned:

 

There are too many conflicting stories concerning how 
Claimant allegedly hurt his back and the symptoms he suffered after the injury. 
The work that Claimant did for other employers is just as likely to have caused 
his condition as any work effort on April 22, 1994.  The testimony of Dr. Davis, the original 
treating physician, and his opinions which are based upon a more reliable 
history and complete medical records are more persuasive than the opinions of 
the other two doctors.

 

Duran argues that Dr. Davis' 
testimony was without foundation and, therefore, the hearing examiner's 
conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.

 

[¶18]       Duran alleges that Dr. 
Davis' testimony lacked foundation because Dr. Davis' opinion was based solely 
on his treatment of Duran prior to July 1994 and, therefore, is fundamentally 
infirm due to the failure to consider the opinions and findings of Drs. LeFever 
and Dobson or the complaints to Smith. Duran further claims that when his counsel cross-examined Dr. Davis 
using a hypothetical question which contained the "true facts" as revealed apart 
from Dr. Davis' treatment, Dr. Davis was forced to concede that Duran's back 
injuries were probably a result of "a twisting fall." Finally, Duran contends 
that the remaining medical evidence was more than sufficient to establish that 
the back injury was caused by the accident on April 22, 
1994.

 

[¶19]       We first note that the 
record clearly reflects adequate foundation for Dr. Davis' opinions. There is no 
question that he was the treating physician immediately after the work related 
accident and that he personally examined Duran. The problem with Duran's 
remaining contentions is that the "true facts" presented in his hypothetical question are not necessarily the 
facts determined to be "true" by the hearing examiner. This is because the facts 
assumed in the hypothetical question reflect only Duran's version of his 
accident and injuries given at the hearing. The record, however, contains 
numerous inconsistencies between Duran's testimony, his previous statements, and 
the testimony of other witnesses.

 

 [¶20]     On review, we consider the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Wyoming Steel 
& Fab, Inc., 882 P.2d  at 876 (quoting Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey, 848 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Wyo. 1993)). When sufficient ambiguities exist in the evidence to 
trigger the process of weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses, that task is for the 
hearing examiner, not an appellate court. Matter of Fisher, 914 P.2d  at 
1230.

 

[¶21]       At the administrative 
hearing, Duran testified he stepped on the crack, twisted his ankle and fell to 
the floor, hitting his left hip, knee and shoulder. Duran further testified that 
after his fall, he was unable to get off the ground for ten to fifteen minutes 
due to extreme pain, including pain in his back.

 

 [¶22]     There is ample evidence to the 
contrary. Mr. John Buchanan, the co-worker who was with Duran at the time of the 
accident, testified that out of the corner of his eye he saw Duran stumble, 
heard him yell out, and then saw him standing up. Mr. Buchanan said he did not 
see Duran fall and he did not think Duran could have been on the ground for long if he did fall. Mr. 
Buchanan also testified that in March 1995, Duran asked him to testify that 
Duran's back had been hurt on April 22, 1994, but that he could not so testify 
because he "didn't know he hurt his back." 

 

[¶23]       Duran's own prior reports to 
medical personnel also raise doubts as to the veracity of his testimony during 
the contested case hearing. At the emergency room and at Duran's first visits 
with Drs. Davis, Dobson and LeFever, Duran never mentioned that he fell. He 
reported only that he had stepped on a crack and twisted (broke, fractured) his ankle. Similarly, 
although at the hearing Duran stated that he experienced back pain immediately 
after twisting his ankle, no back pain was reported to anyone until over a month 
later. Moreover, the impact of Duran's prior history of back pain reported to 
Drs. Dobson and LeFever was confusing at 
best.

 

[¶24]       A review of the entire 
record reveals conflicting stories about the accident, how Duran hurt his back, 
what symptoms occurred after the incident, and the timing of the symptoms. Faced 
with this evidence, the hearing examiner found that the testimony of Dr. Davis, 
based upon Duran's medical history and treatment immediately after the incident, was most persuasive. 
We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner as long as 
the record contains substantial evidence to support his resolution of the 
conflicts in the record. Little America Refining Co. v. Witt, 854 P.2d 51, 58 
(Wyo. 1993) (quoting Workers' Comp. Div. v. Hollister, 794 P.2d 886, 891 (Wyo. 
1990)). We find that in this case, the record contains substantial evidence to 
support the hearing examiner's conclusion.

 

V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶25]       The hearing examiner's 
conclusion that Duran failed to meet his burden of proving the compensability of 
his back injury is consistent with the evidence of record as evaluated by the 
hearing examiner. The hearing examiner's determination is supported by 
substantial evidence. Affirmed.