Case Title: Banda v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1990-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Banda v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1990 WY 34789 P.2d 124Case Number: 89-155Decided: 03/28/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
TOMAS BANDA, 

APPELLANT 
(EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT),

v.

STATE OF WYOMING, EX 
REL., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, APPELLEE 
(OBJECTOR-DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Uinta County, John D. Troughton, J.

Charles D. 
Phillips of Phillips & Phillips, Evanston, for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen. and Ron Arnold, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., for 
appellee.

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

URBIGKIT, Justice.

[¶1]      Sufficiency of 
the evidence to sustain the decision of the Worker's Compensation hearing 
examiner denying a permanent total disability claim provides the issue for this 
appeal. We affirm the denial of this successive claim filed to supplement an 
earlier partial permanent award granted for the same injury.

[¶2]      This court has 
recently defined the standard to be utilized in judicial review with the present 
structural change in the Wyoming Worker's Compensation adjudication process 
provided by creation of the hearing examiner system. It is first the burden of 
the claimant "to establish every essential element of his claim by a 
preponderance of the evidence." Hohnholt v. Basin Elec. Power Co-op, 784 P.2d 233, 235 (Wyo. 1989). Then:

"We examine the entire 
record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support an agency's 
findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we 
cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency, and must uphold 
the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a 
reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. It is 
more than a scintilla of evidence." (citation omitted) Trout v. Wyoming Oil 
& Gas Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1047, 1050 (Wyo. 1986).

Id. at 
234.

[¶3]      In procedural 
process, the additional factor here presented differing from Hohnholt is in that 
case, the administrative agency appeal was certified to this court by the 
district court without decision pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09 and here, the 
district court considered and denied the appeal. A second appeal is now taken. 
At this juncture for present worker's compensation review, we consider the 
record with the same standard, the Hohnholt rule, that was initially applied by 
the district court. Department of Revenue and Taxation of State of Wyoming v. 
Casper Legion Baseball Club, Inc., 767 P.2d 608 (Wyo. 1989); Atchison v. Career 
Service Council of State of Wyoming, 664 P.2d 18, 20 (Wyo.), cert. denied 464 U.S. 982, 104 S. Ct. 424, 78 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1983).

[¶4]      With the standard 
for assessing sufficiency of the evidence contended error established, we are 
invested with a factual review of the agency record to determine if substantial 
evidence exists to sustain the decision of the hearing examiner. Hohnholt, 784 P.2d 233; Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Wyoming, 662 P.2d 878 (Wyo. 1983).

[¶5]      In 1987, claimant 
Tomas Banda developed a compensable back injury, sustained during lifting, for 
which he received a permanent partial disability award of 20% physical 
impairment providing $12,625.38 in cash payments. About the time those payments 
were exhausted, Banda filed a March 1988 claim for a permanent total disability 
benefit to which both the employer and the state fund filed objections. The 
hearing examiner, who provided a comprehensive opportunity for the presentation 
of evidence in the contested proceeding, denied the claim and the district 
court, upon first appeal, affirmed. The 204 page trial transcript was addressed 
by Banda's eighty-four page brief in district court, and now on appeal, we are 
presented with another evidentiary recitation and evaluation of sixty-eight 
pages.

[¶6]      We conclude, in 
agreement with present appellee, Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, which 
replaced the employer in leading the litigation, that sufficient evidence was 
introduced to sustain the decision of the hearing examiner.1 Trial evidence revealed post injury 
recovery and resumed employment. Events thereafter, relative to quitting to take 
a trip back to Mexico, Wyoming's economic downturn, and general lack of job 
availability, provided evidence peculiarly within the fact finding function 
assigned to the hearing examiner and will not be replaced by a decision of this 
court. Factually, the hearing examiner had evidentiary support for his decision 
that Banda had not proved a disability factor greater than the 20% that had 
originally been paid.

[¶7]      There is a 
logical concept for a comprehensively presented odd lot doctrine incorporated 
into Banda's argument. Leonard v. McDonalds of Jackson Hole, 746 P.2d 1261, 1263 
(Wyo. 1987). It is contended that Banda, with limited education and minimal use 
of the English language, was confined to employability for heavy labor 
activities. Consequently, the syllogism continues that not as the direct result 
of physical condition, but rather employability, the 20% disability was in fact 
a 100% disability because of Banda's work capabilities and job market 
availability.2 At present, we are not willing to 
extend any odd lot doctrine as a matter of law to the nature of Banda's 
education and language performance. The degree of disability and employability 
was appropriately explored in trial testimony and with substantial sustaining 
evidence, requires this court to affirm the fact finder's decision. Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation cannot properly serve to solve the conditions of 
unemployment within our state's repressed economy.

[¶8]      
Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 At hearing, the 
testimony revealed that Banda had rejected medical advice to secure another back 
operation which may or may not have been realistically related to the 1987 onset 
of back problems. However, at the date of oral argument, we were advised that 
the operation had been or would shortly be performed and, at this time, Banda is 
again on a temporary total disability status during completion of the present 
medical proceeding. We were advised, however, by counsel for the state fund that 
the prior contest and decision was not rendered moot since a factor of res 
judicata may be created if, after completion of present medical care, Banda 
continues his permanent total disability claim. On that basis of asserted 
non-mootness, we decide this appeal.

2 The odd lot or eggshell 
thesis, Schepanovich v. United States Steel Corp., 669 P.2d 522 (Wyo. 1983), if 
related to factors as presented here, provides a difficult philosophic concept. 
We will not pursue that analysis further than to recognize that the 
forward-minded employee who seeks to broaden employment opportunity should not 
be doubly disadvantaged if his beneficent efforts are after the occurrence of an 
injury to result in magnified worker's compensation disability exposure.