Case Title: Cronk v. City of Cody

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cronk v. City of Cody1995 WY 97897 P.2d 476Case Number: 94-201Decided: 06/21/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

In the 
Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Joe CRONK, Sr.,

 Appellant 
(Employee-Claimant),

v.

The CITY OF CODY, Appellee (Employer-Objector), and 
State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Division,

 Appellee 
(Objector).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Park County, John T. Langdon, J.

Dick L. Kahl, Powell, for appellant.

Robert D. Olson, Cody, for City of Cody.

Richard J. Albanese, Sp. 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Powell, for Worker's 
Compensation Div.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant, Joe 
Cronk, Sr. (Cronk) appeals from the district court's reversal of a worker's 
compensation award. Appellant claims that the district court erred in concluding 
that his injury was not work related.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Appellant 
presents two issues:

1.         The 
Hearing Officer's determination that Appellant suffered a work related injury is 
supported by substantial evidence, is in accordance with law and is not 
arbitrary capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.

2.         The 
District Court improperly reweighed the evidence presented at the contested 
hearing and thus its decision must be reversed.

Appellee objectors, the City 
of Cody and the Worker's Compensation Division, articulate three 
issues:

1.         
Whether the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law 
were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in 
accordance with law and thus unlawful under Wyoming Statute Section 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)?

2.         
Whether the Hearing Officer's determination that Appellant incurred a 
work related injury was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and 
thus unlawful under Wyoming Statute Section 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(E)?

3.         
Whether the Administrative Hearing Officer properly construed and applied 
the statutory requirements of Wyoming Statute Sections 27-14-502 and 
27-14-503?

FACTS

[¶4]      At the time of 
his injury, Cronk was employed by the City of Cody as a police officer. Cronk, 
off-duty at the time, was injured while working out in a gym located in the Law 
Enforcement Center.

[¶5]      At the hearing, 
testimony showed that officers were not required to use the gym or engage in any 
kind of fitness program as a condition of employment. The gym, in the same 
building as the police department, was available for use to employees, and their 
family members, of the police office, sheriff department, fire department, and 
search and rescue. Use of the gym was strictly on a voluntary 
basis.

[¶6]      The hearing 
officer concluded that a nexus between Cronk's injury and his employment existed 
entitling him to an award of benefits. The hearing officer noted that Cronk was 
off-duty at the time of the injury; however, he concluded that because the gym 
was located in the same building as the police department and because Cronk 
worked out to be a better police officer, there was a sufficient nexus between 
the employment and the injury.

[¶7]      On appeal, the 
district court disagreed and concluded that there was not a nexus between the 
injury and Cronk's employment. Claiming that the hearing officer's decision was 
supported by substantial evidence and that the district court improperly 
reweighed the evidence, Cronk now appeals.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶8]      When we review an 
agency decision, we are not bound by the conclusions reached by the district 
court. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 (Wyo. 1994). 
Our review is as if the case came directly to this court from the agency in the 
first instance. Id.

[¶9]      The requirement 
that a nexus exist between the injury and the course of employment is derived 
from W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xi) (1991): 

"Injury" means any harmful change in the human 
organism other than normal aging and includes damage to or loss of any 
artificial replacement and death, arising out of and in the course of 
employment while at work in or about the premises occupied, used or 
controlled by the employer and incurred while at work in places where the 
employer's business requires an employee's presence and which subjects the 
employee to extrahazardous duties incident to the 
business.

(Emphasis added.) Whether a 
nexus exists between an injury and the course of employment is a question of 
fact. Stuckey v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 
(Wyo. 1995). Thus, our standard on review is for substantial evidence. Id. 
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might 
accept in support of an agency's conclusion so long as it is more than a mere 
scintilla of evidence. Worker's Compensation Claim of Taylor v. State ex rel. 
Worker's Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 559, 561 (Wyo. 1995).

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   In Bearden v. State ex rel. 
Worker's Compensation Div., 868 P.2d 268 (Wyo. 1994) the claimant was injured 
while leaving her home to deliver a performance evaluation to her employer. We 
upheld the hearing examiner's determination that the claimant was not injured in 
the course of her employment because there was no evidence in the record that 
her employer required her to hand deliver the evaluation. Bearden, 868 P.2d  at 
269.

[¶11]   Similarly, there is no evidence in 
this record that the police department required its officers to use the gym 
facility or even to work out. To the contrary, all of the evidence is that there 
were no such requirements and that the use of the gym was totally voluntary on 
the part of any officer. Cronk was not in a place his employer required him to 
be; therefore, Cronk was not in the course of his employment. Bearden, 868 P.2d  
at 269.

[¶12]   Undoubtedly, certain activities, 
such as maintaining physical fitness in a job that requires a lot of physical 
exertion, would enhance an employee's performance of his job and benefit his 
employer. However, if an employer does not require its employees to engage in 
such activities as a condition of employment, then those activities cannot be in 
the course of employment. W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xi).

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   There was not substantial evidence 
to support the hearing officer's conclusion; therefore, the district court did 
not err in reversing that decision and denying benefits.

[¶14]   The district court is 
affirmed.