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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bhutto v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1997 WY 34933 P.2d 481Case Number: 96-119Decided: 02/28/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

REHAN ALI BHUTTO,

Appellant(Claimant),

 

v.

 

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION,

Appellee(Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from The District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable J. Dan Spangler

 

Representing Appellant:

Keith R. Nachbar, Casper. 

Representing Appellee:

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.

 

Before TAYLOR, 
C.J., and THOMAS, MACY and LEHMAN, JJ., and PRICE, 
D.J.

PRICE, District Judge.

 

[¶1]      This appeal 
raises the question of whether the hearing examiner correctly determined the 
time of injury under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-403(c) (Cum.Supp. 1995) for computation 
of temporary total disability benefits. The district court affirmed the decision 
of the hearing examiner. Finding the decision is supported by substantial 
evidence and otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm.

 

I.                     
ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant, Rehan 
Ali Bhutto (Bhutto), states the issue:

Under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-403(c) (1994) should 
temporary total disability benefits be calculated based on the employee's actual 
monthly earnings at the time of the accident, or at the time of the first 
disability resulting from that accident?

 

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

Whether substantial evidence supports the hearing 
examiner's determination of Claimant's "time of injury" for purposes of 
calculating his temporary total disability benefits.

 

 

 

II. FACTS

 

[¶4]      Bhutto was 
involved in a vehicular accident on October 3, 1994. At the time, he was working 
for American Mobile Research (AMR). That employer contested the claim and a 
hearing was held February 27, 1995. Bhutto was awarded appropriate benefits. The 
award included temporary total disability. The amount was calculated by the 
Division using Bhutto's rate of pay on October 3, 1994 as the date of injury. 
Bhutto contested the amount of the temporary total disability and a hearing was 
held on this issue on August 15, 1995. The hearing examiner denied the request 
for additional benefits and Bhutto petitioned the district court, which 
affirmed.

 

[¶5]      Due to the 
inability to obtain a transcript of the evidence, the parties stipulated that 
Bhutto's testimony at the hearing and relevant for purposes of the appeal 
was:

1. The Claimant/Appellant was involved in a vehicular 
accident on October 3, 1994, while working for American Mobile 
Research.

2. As of October 3, 1994, the Claimant/Appellant was 
being paid $1,000.00 per month at his job at American Mobile 
Research.

3. As of the date of the accident, October 3, 1994, 
the Claimant/Appellant had been hired, but had not yet started work at a second 
job with M.J. Metal Products, Inc.

4. The Claimant/Appellant was advised by his doctor 
that he could work light duty, and he immediately returned to work at his 
original job with American Mobile Research.

5. Claimant/Appellant worked at his original 
employer, American Mobile Research, on light duty from the time of the accident 
on October 3, 1994 until October 25, 1994.

6. On approximately October 11, 1994, the 
Claimant/Appellant also began working at M.J. Metal Products, Inc. He worked at 
that job on light duty until October 25, 1994.

7. The entire workers' compensation file and 
Claimant's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence at the 
hearing.

 

[¶6]      After the 
accident, on October 5, 1994, Bhutto was examined by Dr. Michael J. Hauke, an 
emergency room physician in Casper, Wyoming. The diagnosis was that Bhutto was 
suffering from neck and low back strain and a right thigh contusion. Dr. Hauke's 
notes indicated that Bhutto was instructed to remain off work for two days until 
checked by the Wyoming Medical Center Outpatient Clinic in Casper. Dr. Hauke 
also referred Bhutto to physical therapy. On October 6, 1994, Dr. Joe K. 
Schoeber, a physician at the Wyoming Medical Center Outpatient Clinic, wrote 
Bhutto a prescription which read, "acute back & neck strain no work until 
released by physician." On October 17, 1994, Dr. Schoeber released Bhutto to 
perform light duty work.

 

[¶7]      Bhutto returned 
to work on October 6, 1994. His position with AMR was a seasonal one with only a 
limited number of working days. He worked October 3rd to the 7th, 10th, 12th, 
16th and 18th. As noted in the stipulation of Bhutto's testimony, he began 
working with M.J. Metal Products, Inc. (MJ) on October 11, 1994 as a full time 
employee. On October 14, 1994, Bhutto completed an application for temporary 
total disability which certified that he was totally disabled October 14, 1994 
through November 15, 1994. The issue before the hearing examiner was whether 
Bhutto's temporary total disability should be based upon his earnings from AMR, 
MJ, or both. The Division calculated benefits based only on Bhutto's earnings 
from AMR.

 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶8]      "When we review 
an administrative order, we are not compelled to accept any of the conclusions 
reached by the district court." Matter of 
Fisher, 914 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Wyo. 1996). "Instead, we review the case as if 
it had come directly to this Court from the agency." Id.

 

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.

Latimer v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 902 P.2d 706, 708-09 (Wyo. 1995). We do not, 
however, defer to an agency's conclusions of law. "Instead, if the `correct rule 
of law has not been invoked and correctly applied, * * * the agency's errors are 
to be corrected.'" Thunder Basin Coal Co. 
v. Study, 866 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Devous v. Wyoming State Bd. of 
Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 414 (Wyo. 1993)).

 

IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶9] The sole issue in this 
case involves a determination of the date of injury for purposes of computation 
of temporary total disability benefits under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-403(c), which 
reads in pertinent part:

For temporary total disability under paragraph (a)(i) 
of this section, the award shall be paid monthly at the rate of two-thirds (2/3) 
of the injured employee's actual monthly earnings at the time of injury but not 
to exceed the statewide average monthly wage for the twelve (12) month period 
immediately preceding the quarterly period in which the injury occurred as 
determined pursuant to W.S. 27-14-802.

 

 [¶10]  Bhutto contends that the hearing examiner 
incorrectly used the date of the accident rather than the date of the injury in his determination. The terms 
are not synonymous and this court has recognized that concept. Matter of Barnes, 587 P.2d 214, 218-19 
(Wyo. 1978); Big Horn Coal Co. v. 
Wartensleben, 502 P.2d 187, 188 (Wyo. 1972). The factual determination of 
the date of injury requires a finding of when the worker is aware (1) he has an 
injury and (2) that the injury was caused by the work accident or environment. 
Claim of Nielsen, 806 P.2d 297, 300 
(Wyo. 1991). The question then is whether there was substantial evidence in the 
record to support the hearing examiner's findings. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions. Matter of 
Farman, 841 P.2d 99, 102 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Baros v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Div., 834 P.2d 1143, 1145 (Wyo. 
1992)).

 

[¶11]   The evidence showed that the 
accident occurred on October 3, 1994. Bhutto was examined by Dr. Hauke on 
October 5, 1994 who reported: "off work until rechecked at Out-patient Clinic 
Fri. 10/7/94." On October 6, 1994, at the outpatient clinic, Dr. Schoeber 
reported: "acute back & neck strain no work until released by physician." On 
October 17, 1994, "may continue light duty but no lifting over 20 lbs and no 
prolonged riding in vehicle; he has a pinched nerve in his back." The report on 
October 27, 1994 indicated: "pt worked light duty 10/14/94 through 10/25/94. Now 
unable to work at all until released." Clearly, Bhutto had to be aware from this 
information that he had an injury and the first contested hearing in this case 
determined that the injury was caused by the work 
accident.

 

[¶12]   Bhutto points to several cases 
which are distinguishable. First, Baldwin 
v. Scullion, 50 Wyo. 508, 62 P.2d 531, 539 (1936) 
held:

 

Under these circumstances, it seems to us palpably 
unjust to the employee to deny him compensation because he has tried to keep his 
place on the employer's pay roll by doing his regular work and then has found 
that conditions produced at the time of the accident, and which medical science could not recognize 
or whose final consequences it could not forecast, have gradually and 
ultimately produced a compensable injury.

 

(Emphasis added.) With the 
doctors' reports of record, Bhutto knew what medical science recognized and 
perhaps what consequences might follow. Bhutto failed to heed those medical 
directives. Since this is not a case of denial of benefits for failure to follow 
the doctor's directions, this evidence is used only to determine that October 3, 
1994 is the date of injury for purposes of computation of temporary total 
disability.

 

[¶13]   In Matter of Barnes, 587 P.2d  at 219, this 
court held that a period of nine years after an accident, the employee was found 
to have a compensable injury. In that case, the employee suffered a back injury 
but was advised by his doctor that he could work as long as he could until there 
was sufficient deterioration of the back where surgery was 
appropriate.

 

[¶14]   In Big Horn Coal Co., 502 P.2d  at 188, the 
employee was found not to have known he had a compensable injury until several 
months after experiencing muscle spasms in his back. It was the deterioration 
and later x-rays together with a myelogram which showed a compensable injury. 
Also, in that case, the issue was whether the employee was ineligible for 
benefits because he failed to report the injury to his employer within 
twenty-four hours as required by the statute.

 

 

 

V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶15]   Substantial evidence was presented 
to the hearing examiner to find that Bhutto's date of injury for computation of 
temporary total disability benefits was October 3, 1994.

 

[¶16]   Affirmed.