Case Title: Bohren v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bohren v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div1994 WY 112883 P.2d 355Case Number: 93-282Decided: 10/20/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Sherry M. 
BOHREN,

Appellant (Petitioner 
Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex 
rel., WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION,

Appellee (Respondent 
Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal from District 
Court, Sheridan County, John C. Brackley, J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Clay B. Jenkins of 
Jenkins Law Office, Sheridan.

Representing 
Appellee:

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. 
Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Kenneth E. Spurrier, Sr. Asst. Atty. 
Gen. and Anthony T. Wendtland, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen.

 

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

LEHMAN, Justice.

[¶1]      Sherry Bohren 
(Bohren) appeals from the denial of a modification of her physical impairment 
rating, claiming that her current rating does not adequately encompass 
psychological damage arising out of her injury.

[¶2]      We affirm the 
denial.

[¶3]      Bohren sets out 
four issues for our consideration:

A. Did Ms. Bohren prove a 
psychological injury due to chronic pain?

B. Did Ms. Bohren's 8% 
award adequately compensate her for this psychological injury?

C. Is the Hearing 
Examiner's internally inconsistent decision that, on the one hand, the 8% award 
had compensated her for chronic pain, and on the other hand she "failed to 
prove" any psychiatric impairment contrary to the evidence?

D. Are there procedural 
reasons to deny Ms. Bohren's claim sufficient to overcome the doctrine of 
liberal interpretation?

The Worker's 
Compensation Division (Division) manages to condense the issues to 
one:

Whether the decision of 
the hearing officer, denying additional benefits for permanent partial 
disability, was in accordance with law and was supported by substantial 
evidence?

I. 
FACTS

[¶4]      Bohren was an 
employee of Westview Health Care Center when, on November 21, 1991, she suffered 
a work related injury to her right hip. Bohren was given an eight percent whole 
body permanent partial disability impairment rating. The basis of the rating was 
chronic pain the injury was causing and a limited range of motion in the injured 
area. Bohren accepted the award payments sent to her until the award was 
exhausted in April of 1993.

[¶5]      In October 1992, 
Bohren objected to the award, claiming that it did not adequately compensate her 
for the injury. On November 19, 1992, Bohren's attorney filed an "Application 
for Additional Benefits" under W.S. 27-14-605.1 Bohren applied for an additional 40 
percent permanent partial disability rating based on her chronic pain and 
associated depression.

[¶6]      A hearing was 
held before a hearing examiner on August 5, 1993. At the hearing, a 
psychiatrist, Dr. Murphy, testified that the chronic pain had resulted in an 
impairment of 60 percent to Bohren and that she was unable to do any work. 
However, Dr. Murphy concluded that Bohren did not suffer from any "significant 
psychiatric disorder."

[¶7]      Bohren also 
called as a witness Dr. Leugers, a psychologist, who admitted he was not a 
physician licensed to practice medicine under Wyoming law. Dr. Leugers opined 
that Bohren was suffering from chronic pain syndrome and depression. Dr. 
Leugers, however, had last seen Bohren in November 1992, and he could not 
testify as to her condition at the time of the trial in August of 
1993.

[¶8]      The Division 
offered the testimony of Kelly White (White), a vocational expert. White opined 
that there was no or little loss in earnings potential to Bohren. White based 
her opinion on Bohren's medical and work history, education and the relevant job 
market. Bohren did not object to White's "Vocational Assessment" or obtain a 
second one.

[¶9]      The hearing 
examiner concluded that Bohren had failed to meet her burden of proof since she 
had not shown that she suffered from a permanent psychiatric injury "over and 
above the 8% impairment for chronic pain she has already been compensated for." 
The examiner found that the eight percent award "clearly compensated [Bohren] in 
all respects for her injury."

[¶10]   Bohren appealed to the district 
court, which certified the case to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09.

II. STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶11]   As we have reiterated on 
innumerable occasions, we defer to hearing examiners' findings of fact since 
they have the duty to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the 
witnesses. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 
(Wyo. 1994). Our review of findings of fact is under the substantial evidence 
rubric.

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.

Trout v. 
Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1047, 1050 
(Wyo. 1986) (citations omitted); see also L & H Welding and Machine Co. 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 876 P.2d 984, 987 (Wyo. 
1994); Hohnholt v. Basin Elec. Power Co-op, 784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo. 
1989).

[¶12]   The burden of proof is on the 
claimant seeking benefits to show that she is entitled to an award. 
Robles, 882 P.2d  at 875 (quoting Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, 474 P.2d 297, 298 (Wyo. 1970)). When an agency has concluded that a claimant has 
failed to sustain its burden of proof, our review is determined by W.S. 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (1990):

(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[.]

Robles, 882 P.2d  at 876-877. 
Accordingly, an agency's determination that a claimant has failed to meet its 
burden of proof will be reversed only if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 
of discretion or not in accordance with law.

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶13]   Bohren's main contention is that 
she met her burden of proof and established a psychological injury arising out 
her chronic pain above and beyond the eight percent impairment originally 
awarded. Bohren points to the testimony of Doctors Murphy and Leugers which 
established that she could not work and that she suffered from depression as a 
result of her chronic pain. Based on that testimony and relying upon the 
American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 
Impairment (Guide), Bohren contends that her permanent partial disability 
rating should be an additional 40 percent. Bohren's argument is that her 
psychological injuries are compensable under W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xi) (1991) but 
that the eight percent award did not take into account her psychological injury, 
only her physical one.

[¶14]   Bohren also launches an attack 
against the testimony of White, the vocational expert, and her opinion that 
Bohren did not suffer from any "significant vocational loss." Bohren asserts 
that White's vocational assessment is unreliable because White failed to account 
for Bohren's psychological injury, chronic pain and the effect of her injuries 
on her current transferable skills.

[¶15]   The Division acknowledges that if 
Bohren had met her burden of proof, then she would have been entitled to an 
award for any psychological injuries. The Division, however, asserts that Bohren 
failed to meet her burden because there is a complete lack of evidence in the 
record that at the time of trial she suffered from any injury that impaired her 
earnings capacity.

[¶16]   We agree with the Division and 
conclude that the hearing examiner did not err in finding that Bohren had failed 
to meet her burden of proof. The nature and extent of a disability are factual 
determinations to be made by the hearing examiner from the testimony and 
evidence. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Wyo. 1992). The hearing examiner determined there was no 
evidence that Bohren suffered from any psychiatric disorder at the date of the 
hearing. The examiner pointed to Dr. Murphy's statement that Bohren did not 
suffer from "any significant psychiatric disorder" and Dr. Leugers' deference to 
Dr. Murphy on that issue.

[¶17]   Bohren points to other evidence in 
the two doctors' testimony which, she claims, supports her assertion of an 
injury. This testimony includes Dr. Murphy's opinion that Bohren could not work 
and that her impairment was greater than eight percent. Yet, Dr. Murphy also 
stated:

As you know, I said that 
I could not find a psychiatric disorder in her. There is nothing worth 
diagnosing in her.

In fact, Dr. 
Murphy's diagnosis of an increased disability rating was based solely upon 
Bohren's physical pain from the injury. The original eight percent 
disability rating included an award for chronic pain. The basis of Bohren's 
claim below and here on appeal is that she suffers from a psychological injury 
due to the chronic pain. As we have already pointed out, there is no evidence 
that Bohren suffered from such an injury. In any event, Bohren was compensated 
for her chronic pain and limited range of motion in the injured area. That is 
all the AMA Guide calls for in setting the impairment rating. Whether 
chronic pain can cause an impairment greater than the limitations on range of 
motion is not an accepted part of the Guide's rating system. There is 
substantial evidence to support the examiner's conclusion that the doctor's 
testimony failed to establish an injury to Bohren.

[¶18]   Furthermore, a claimant for 
permanent partial disability must show: (1) the extent of the injury; (2) the 
disability or loss of earning power; and (3) that they are entitled to the award 
sought. McCarty v. Bear Creek Uranium Co., 694 P.2d 93, 95 (Wyo. 1985). 
Bohren has not only failed to show any injury above and beyond her original 
eight percent determination, but she has failed to demonstrate any disability or 
loss of earning power. White, the Division's vocational expert, testified that 
Bohren's earning capacity was not diminished in any way. Bohren's challenge to 
her testimony is directed towards White's reliability and the efficacy of her 
methods. Those contentions are, however, questions of weight and credibility, to 
which we defer to the trier of fact, i.e., the hearing examiner. Bohren did not 
challenge White's credentials as an expert, nor did she attempt to put on any 
testimony by her own expert. Bohren has simply failed to carry her burden of 
proof, and the hearing examiner did not err in so holding.

[¶19]   Finally, Bohren contends that the 
hearing examiner incorrectly applied W.S. 27-14-605(a) (1991), resulting in an 
enhanced burden of proof being placed upon her. Wyoming Statute 27-14-605(a) 
provides:

If a determination is 
made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits under this act, an 
application may be made to the division by any party within four (4) years from 
the date of the last payment for additional medical and disability benefits or 
for a modification of the amount of benefits on the ground of increase or 
decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or 
fraud.

Essentially, 
Bohren argues that the hearing examiner ignored the disjunctive "or" and 
required her to prove both an increase of incapacity due solely to injury and 
mistake or fraud.

[¶20]   Bohren's claim is without merit. 
The hearing examiner's decision order clearly demonstrates that he required 
Bohren to prove:

1. That there has been an 
increase in disability; and

2. That increase is due 
solely to the injury.

Nowhere in the 
record does it appear that the examiner also required Bohren to prove a mistake 
or fraud in addition to the above. The examiner did not enhance Bohren's burden 
of proof. There was no error.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶21]   Bohren failed to meet her burden of 
proof; and, accordingly, the hearing examiner correctly ruled that Bohren was 
not entitled to a permanent partial disability rating above that which was 
already awarded to her.

[¶22]   Affirmed.

Footnote

1 Bohren seems to suggest 
that she did not intend to seek a modification of her award under W.S. 
27-14-605, but rather she meant to appeal the eight percent rating itself. 
Apparently, however, she did not seek to amend her application below nor has she 
raised the matter as an issue on appeal. Therefore, we will assume, like the 
hearing examiner, that this is an action to modify an award under § 
605.