Case Title: Allen v. Natrona County School Dist. No. One

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-283

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1991-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Allen v. Natrona County School Dist. No. One1991 WY 66811 P.2d 1Case Number: 90-283Decided: 05/08/1991Supreme Court of Wyoming
Donna ALLEN, Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

NATRONA COUNTY SCHOOL 
DISTRICT NO. ONE, Appellee (Respondent),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
Appellee (Defendant).

Appeal from District 
Court, NatronaCounty, Dan Spangler, 
J.

Eric A. Easton, Casper, for 
appellant.

Judith A. Studer of 
Schwartz, Bon, McCrary & Walker, Casper, for appellee Natrona County School 
Dist. No. One.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. 
Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and J.C. DeMers, Sr. Asst. Atty. 
Gen., for appellee State of Wyo., ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Div.

Before URBIGKIT, C.J., 
THOMAS and GOLDEN, JJ., and ROONEY and BROWN, Retired JJ. 

BROWN, Justice, 
Retired.

[¶1.]     Appellant, Donna Allen, 
while employed by appellee Natrona County School District Number One, developed 
bilateral epicondylitis, commonly known as "tennis elbow." She received medical 
benefits and temporary total disability benefits but was denied a permanent 
partial impairment rating.

[¶2.]     The issues stated by 
appellant on appeal are:

1. Is the Appellant 
entitled to a Permanent Partial Disability award under W.S. § 27-14-405(a), when 
her permanent physical impairment, as defined by W.S. § 27-14-102(a)(xvi), is 
not rateable under the mandated American Medical Association Guide to the 
Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment?

2. If the Appellant is 
precluded from receiving Permanent Partial Disability benefits, is equal 
protection guaranteed by the Wyoming Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 and 
Article 10, Section 4, or the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 
violated?

[¶3.]     We affirm.

[¶4.]     The facts in this case 
are not in dispute. Appellant Donna Allen was employed by the Natrona County 
School District Number One as a cafeteria worker on August 29, 1983. Appellant's 
injuries occurred over a period of time and arose out of the repetitive lifting 
and stirring motions and occasional heavy lifting required in her employment. As 
a result of the diagnosis of tennis elbow, appellant underwent three surgical 
procedures: February 1, 1988 for tennis elbow release on the right arm; July 12, 
1988 for tennis elbow release on the left arm and November 15, 1988 for tennis 
elbow release on the left arm.

[¶5.]     Appellant was examined 
by Thomas Landon, M.D., and was evaluated for a permanent partial disability. 
Dr. Landon gave appellant a twenty percent permanent partial impairment to both 
arms based upon the Manual for Orthopedic Surgeons Evaluating Permanent Physical 
Impairment.

[¶6.]     At the request of the 
State of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division (appellee), appellant was re-evaluated for a permanent partial 
impairment by Gerald L. Baker, M.D. He gave her a zero percent permanent partial 
impairment rating pursuant to the American Medical Association Guide to the 
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (3rd Ed. 1990).

[¶7.]     Appellant resigned her 
position effective January 31, 1989. At the time of her resignation she was 
earning $7.04 per hour. On April 17, 1989, appellant was reemployed by the 
Natrona County School District Number One as a teachers' aide. She held this 
position during the school year and through the summer of 1989, earning $5.25 
per hour. Her job duties did not include heavy lifting or repetitive motions 
using her arms or elbows.

[¶8.]     The dispute between the 
parties was tried by Gayla Daniels, an administrative hearing officer. The issue 
at hearing was whether or not appellant was permanently partially disabled and 
thus entitled to benefits and a vocational award pursuant to the Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Act. Phil Nissan, a vocational rehabilitation counselor 
for the State of Wyoming Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, testified at 
the hearing regarding assistance provided by the Department to appellant due to 
her bilateral epicondylitis. Fred Pierce, Assistant Superintendent for Natrona 
County School District Number One, testified regarding appellant's prior 
position as a cafeteria assistant and the later rehiring of appellant as a 
teachers' aide. He stated that appellant was a superior teachers' 
aide.

[¶9.]     At trial, the 
depositions of Dr. Landon and Dr. Baker were introduced into evidence in lieu of 
their direct testimony. Dr. Landon indicated that his physical impairment rating 
was based only upon the Manual for Orthopedic Surgeons. He testified that 
appellant's physical limitations were due entirely to subjective pain complaints 
and not to any loss of motion. Dr. Baker testified that, consistent with the 
A.M.A. Guide, there was no loss of motion and that the permanent impairment 
rating pursuant to the A.M.A. Guide would be zero percent.

[¶10.]  The administration hearing officer ruled: 

W.S. 27-14-405(a) (Supp. 
1986) provides that a physical impairment rating be based upon the most current 
edition of the A.M.A. Guide. The only A.M.A. Guide rating was provided by Dr. 
Baker. This rating was for a zero percent (0%) physical impairment. The physical 
impairment rating provided by Dr. Landon was not consistent with W.S. § 
27-14-405, in that it was based upon the Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeons and not 
the A.M.A. Guide. Therefore, the opinion expressed by Dr. Langdon is not 
consistent with the statutory language and cannot be considered.

* * * Based upon the 
statutory language * * *, the Employee-Claimant has failed to prove that she has 
suffered a permanent partial disability.

* * * [T]he 
Employee-Claimant cannot receive an award for a loss of earnings capacity 
without first demonstrating that there was a physical impairment. Since a 
physical impairment was not demonstrated, there can be no loss of earnings 
capacity.

The District Court for 
the Seventh Judicial District affirmed the decision of the administrative 
hearing officer.

I

[¶11.]  In her first assignment of error, 
appellant contends that the hearing officer and the district court erred in 
applying the pertinent provisions of the workers' compensation statutes. She 
complains that, although her request for a permanent partial disability was 
denied, there was substantial evidence showing a permanent partial disability as 
defined by W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xv):

     "Permanent partial 
disability" means the loss or loss of use of any body limb or sense or any other 
injury known to medicine or surgery causing permanent impairment of a bodily 
function[.]

[¶12.]  W.S. 27-14-405(a) provides in pertinent 
part:

[U]pon receipt of a 
physical impairment rating * * * resulting in a permanent partial disability as 
defined under W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xv), an employee shall receive compensation * * 
* provided by this section. Impairment ratings provided in accordance with this 
section shall be based upon the most current edition of the American Medical 
Association's guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment.

[¶13.]  In 1986, the Wyoming Legislature amended 
W.S. 27-14-405(a) and specified that "impairment ratings provided in accordance 
with this section shall be based upon the most current edition of the American 
Medical Association's guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment." It is 
appellant's contention that she has a permanent physical impairment not 
recognized by the A.M.A. Guide and that there is an inconsistency between W.S. 
27-14-102(a)(xv) and W.S. 27-14-405(a) which prevents an injured employee from 
receiving permanent partial disability benefits. She adds that she has shown her 
suffering is from an impairment recognized by the medical community and 
supported by the testimony of both physicians in this matter, but is foreclosed 
from receiving the benefit because of the conflicting statutory provisions. 
Appellant states that this conflict creates an inequity among similarly situated 
injured employees, some of whom have impairments recognized under the A.M.A. 
Guide and those, like herself, whose impairments are not recognized by statute 
and are not eligible for additional benefits.

[¶14.]  The statutes in question are not 
inconsistent. W.S. 27-14-405(a), as amended, limits the definition of the word 
"impairment" as used in W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xv) to mean those impairments 
specifically listed in the A.M.A. Guide.

[¶15.]  The administrative hearing officer relied 
upon the case of Fischer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division, 734 P.2d 558 (Wyo. 1987), which denied recovery of permanent partial 
disability and a vocational evaluation in the absence of a physical impairment 
rating. Fischer, standing alone, however, is not dispositive of this case in 
that it was decided under W.S. 27-12-403 (June 1983 Repl.), which did not 
require that impairment ratings be based upon the A.M.A. Guide. 

[¶16.]  Under the A.M.A. Guide, appellant had a 
zero percent impairment rating. The administrative hearing officer, therefore, 
correctly applied the law as dictated by Fischer in denying a permanent partial 
disability or vocational award. The court found that "a showing of physical 
impairment is a prerequisite to an award for permanent partial disability." 
Fischer, 734 P.2d  at 561. The court further found that, in the absence of a 
showing of an impairment, "any vocational evaluation to determine the 
proportions of such loss [is] fruitless and vacuous." Id. The fact that the 
legislature specified that an impairment must be determined by use of the A.M.A. 
Guide does not affect the law as stated in Fischer, and the administrative 
hearing officer correctly applied the Fischer decision to this case.

II

[¶17.]  In her second issue, appellant states 
that similarly situated employees, that is, those whose impairments are rated 
under the A.M.A. Guide, and those not rated under the A.M.A. Guide are treated 
differently. Appellant makes the naked statement that similarly situated 
employees are treated differently, but she does not elucidate with specifics. 
She complains that, because of this different treatment, the equal protection 
standards of the United 
States and Wyoming Constitutions are 
violated.

[¶18.]  The Fourteenth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution permits classification of individuals who are similarly 
situated, if such classifications are reasonable and not arbitrary. Equal 
protection of the law means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the 
same rule under the same circumstances. 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 
737, 738 (1979). Under the Wyoming Constitution, one who attacks the 
classification of a statute on the basis of equal protection has the burden of 
proving that the statute does not rest upon any reasonable or rational basis and 
is essentially arbitrary. Bell v. Gray, 377 P.2d 924, 925 (Wyo. 1963); United States Steel 
Corporation v. Wyoming Environmental Quality 
Council, 575 P.2d 749, 754 (Wyo. 1978). Appellant has not demonstrated 
that there has been any arbitrary classification in this case based upon the 
requirement of showing an impairment in accordance with the A.M.A. Guide in 
order to obtain an award for permanent partial disability or a vocational 
award.

[¶19.]  The issue is whether or not it was 
reasonable and rational for the legislature to require that claimants present 
evidence of an impairment pursuant to the A.M.A. Guide in order to recover a 
permanent partial disability and vocational award, and whether or not this 
requirement, as applied by the administrative hearing officer, constituted a 
denial of equal protection.

[¶20.]  Appellant in this case was not able to 
recover a permanent partial disability or vocational award because her injury, 
epicondylitis (tennis elbow), did not rise to the level of being an impairment 
according to the A.M.A. Guide. Appellant had no limitations in either elbow's 
range of motion, which were full, including flexion, extensions and 
proration/supination. Additionally, there was no evidence of any specific 
neurological or motor function deficit. Dr. Baker testified that there was no 
objective evidence that appellant experienced pain. Since appellant had no 
limitations on her elbows, despite some subjective complaints of pain, her 
impairment rating pursuant to the A.M.A. Guide was zero percent. These factors 
provide substantial evidence to support the administrative hearing officer's 
determination. It is reasonable for the Wyoming State Legislature to pass a 
statute that does not allow compensation for only subjective pain, when such 
pain does not rise to the level of an impairment.1 

[¶21.]  We find no error in the hearing officer's 
determination.

[¶22.]  Affirmed.

ROONEY, Retired J., files a 
dissenting opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1 We note in passing that 
the A.M.A. Guide does allow for an impairment rating for pain, when the pain is 
great enough to cause an impairment. On of the A.M.A. Guide, 3rd edition, it is 
stated that pain which "persists despite appropriate treatment can result in a 
loss of function of the affected extremity and impairment that is as great as 
100%." (Emphasis added.) The A.M.A. Guide provides for a rating for pain in 
certain instances, for example, when associated with peripheral spinal nerve 
impairment.

ROONEY, Justice, Retired, 
dissenting.

[¶23.]  I do not disagree with the result here 
reached. However, I do not believe that the hearing examiner has the authority 
to act as an independent judicial officer and, therefore, dissent for the 
reasons stated in State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. 
Halstead, 795 P.2d 760 (Wyo. 1990).