Case Title: Stockdale v. Transystems Services, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-35

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Stockdale v. Transystems Services, Inc.1995 WY 215908 P.2d 980Case Number: 95-35Decided: 12/29/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
Robert L. STOCKDALE,

 Appellant 
(Petitioner/Claimant),

v.

TRANSYSTEMS SERVICES, 
INC., 

Appellee 
(Employer/Respondent), 

and 

State of Wyoming, ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 

Appellee 
(Objector/Defendant).

Appeal from The District 
Court, Fremont County, Nancy J. Guthrie, J.

Donald L. 
Painter, Casper, for Appellant.

R.I. Leedy of 
Hettinger & Leedy, Riverton, for Appellee Transystems Services, 
Inc.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and Jennifer A. 
Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for Appellee State of Wyoming ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division.

Before 
THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ., and BROWN, J., 
Retired.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      The primary issue 
to be resolved in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence in the 
record before the hearing examiner to justify his finding that Robert L. 
Stockdale (Stockdale) failed to sustain his burden of proof that his claimed 
disability was related to an industrial injury. In the Order Denying Benefits, 
the hearing examiner concluded the claimed disability was "attributable to a 
degenerative disc disease," and no award of permanent partial disability should 
be made. There is a secondary issue, raised by the State of Wyoming ex rel. 
Workers' Compensation Division (Division), relating to the application of the 
doctrine of res judicata in this case. We hold that there indeed is 
sufficient evidence to sustain the order of the hearing examiner in this case, 
and his determination could also be supported under the doctrine of res 
judicata. The district court's Order Following Review upholding the order of 
the hearing examiner is affirmed.

[¶2]      In his 
Appellant's Brief, Stockdale states these issues:

1.         
Whether Appellant's claim for permanent partial physical impairment 
benefits and vocational benefits are barred by the doctrine of res 
judicata.

2.         
Whether Appellant's claim for permanent partial physical impairment and 
vocational benefits are barred by the finding, erroneous but not appealed from, 
that Appellant's injury lasted no longer than February 22, 
1989.

3.         
Whether Appellant sustained the burden of proving that he was entitled to 
the requested award of permanent partial physical impairment and vocational 
benefits.

In its Brief of 
Appellee, Stockdale's employer, Transystems Services, Inc. (Transystems), states 
the issues in this way:

1.         
Whether substantial evidence exists to support the hearing examiner's 
determination that employee/claimant is ineligible for additional 
benefits?

2.         
Whether the hearing examiner's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an 
abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law?

3.         
Whether employee/claimant is estopped and otherwise prevented from 
receiving additional benefits, by the hearing officer's determination that his 
symptoms do not arise out of the 1988 work-related injury?

4.         Is 
employee/claimant barred by the workers' compensation statute of limitations, 
from claiming additional benefits under the Act?

In its Brief of 
Appellee, the Division states the issues as:

Whether the hearing 
examiner's order denying Claimant's application for permanent partial disability 
and loss of earning benefits was in accordance with law and supported by 
substantial evidence.

A. Whether a finding that 
a claimant's disability did not arise out of and in the course of employment, 
made in connection with the claimant's application for continued temporary total 
disability benefits and payment of medical costs, and not appealed from, 
precludes a later application for permanent partial disability and loss of 
earning benefits for the same disability. 

B. Whether the record 
contains substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's determination 
that Claimant's disability did not arise out of and in the course of his 
employment.

[¶3]      Stockdale 
suffered a ligamentous strain to his back on November 10, 1988 while changing 
the wheel and tire on a semitrailer. The employer objected to Stockdale's claim 
for benefits and, following a hearing on May 12, 1989, an order was entered by 
the Office of Administrative Hearings awarding Stockdale temporary total 
disability through February 22, 1989. The order provided that the claims for 
temporary total disability for that period were granted and should be paid from 
the employer's account. The hearing examiner sustained the employer's objection 
to any disability after February 22, 1989; sustained the employer's objections 
to claims for travel for treatment in Colorado; and sustained the objections for 
possible future medical expenses. An appeal was initiated from that order, but 
it was never completed or resolved.

[¶4]      On March 5, 1993, 
Stockdale filed a claim for additional benefits from the Division based upon a 
recent medical evaluation. The evaluation encompassed an opinion that Stockdale 
suffered from a 19% permanent partial physical impairment of his total body. On 
May 5, 1993, the Division denied any further benefits, advising Stockdale he had 
failed to prove his condition was related to the injury he sustained on November 
10, 1988. This burden of proof is assigned to the employee pursuant to WYO. 
STAT. § 27-14-605(c) (1991).

[¶5]      Stockdale 
requested a hearing, and one was held before a hearing examiner on November 18, 
1993. Stockdale was the only witness at the hearing, and the new evidence 
introduced consisted of the 1993 Disability Impairment Evaluation prepared by 
his physician and a Vocational Evaluation requested by the Division. Neither 
document evidenced a causal relationship between the 1988 work-related injury 
and the deterioration in Stockdale's physical condition or his arthritic spine. 
In the order, the hearing examiner specifically found that Stockdale "failed to 
carry his burden of proof that the condition he complained of was attributable 
to an industrial injury while in the employ of Respondent [Transystems]." The 
hearing examiner found, instead, that the condition was "attributable to a 
degenerative disc disease," and he denied Stockdale's claim for disability 
benefits after February 22, 1989. The order of the hearing examiner was affirmed 
on review by the district court, and an appeal was taken to this court by 
Stockdale.

[¶6]      The essence of 
this case concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the determination 
of the hearing examiner. Our rule is that, if the findings of a hearing examiner 
are supported by substantial evidence, the ruling will not be disturbed on 
appeal. Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59 (Wyo. 1993). Substantial 
evidence is relevant evidence acceptable to a reasonable mind in support of the 
conclusions of the hearing examiner. Little America Refining Co. v. Witt, 854 P.2d 51 (Wyo. 1993); Hohnholt v. Basin Electric Power Co-op., 784 P.2d 233 (Wyo. 
1989); Trout v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1047 (Wyo. 
1986). In making this determination, we examine the entire record. Little 
America Refining Co.; State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Brown, 
805 P.2d 830 (Wyo. 1991); Hohnholt; Trout.

[¶7]      In this instance, 
Stockdale faced a tandem burden. Conn v. Ed Wederski Constr. Co., 668 P.2d 649 
(Wyo. 1983). He initially had to establish a ground for reopening his case 
pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 27-14-605(a) (1991), which reads:

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.

Stockdale offers 
no contention mistake or fraud existed in this case and, consequently, his 
effort is to modify the amount of his benefit on the ground of an increase in 
incapacity due solely to the injury. 

[¶8]      Stockdale was the 
only witness who testified at the most recent hearing, and the evidence 
presented consisted of a 1993 Disability Impairment Evaluation prepared by his 
physician and a Vocational Evaluation requested by the Division. Neither 
document addressed the causative factor of Stockdale's deteriorated physical 
condition in the context of the 1988 work-related ligamentous strain injury. The 
hearing examiner had before him the proceedings from the 1989 hearing, which he 
considered. He concluded Stockdale had failed to carry his burden of proof to 
sustain his claim and ruled the condition was attributable to a degenerative 
disc disease. It follows that Stockdale did not even demonstrate his right to 
proceed under WYO. STAT. § 27-14-605 and, as is frequently true in reopening 
cases, the evidence overlaps with respect to the establishment of the right to 
reopen and the increased disability. Stockdale failed to prove any increased 
disability attributable to the injury.

[¶9]      We also recognize 
an independent basis for denying these benefits found in res judicata. 
Awards in workers' compensation cases are subject to the concept of finality. 
Conn. The policy reason is that a litigant must be limited to one opportunity to 
try his case on the merits. Matter of Worker's Compensation Claim of Swasso, 751 P.2d 887 (Wyo. 1988). This case clearly meets the criteria for invoking res 
judicata as set forth in Swasso. The parties are identical; the subject 
matter is identical; the issues are the same and relate to the same subject 
matter; and the parties appear in identical capacities in reference to both the 
subject matter and the issues.

[¶10]   Language from Swasso, 751 P.2d  at 
891, is apt:

Appellant was clearly 
praying for benefits already denied by the trial court [hearing examiner] for 
injuries found not to be compensable. Had the trial court [hearing examiner] 
reopened the case, the court [hearing examiner] would have had to relitigate the 
threshold question of whether or not Swasso [Stockdale] was suffering from a 
work-related injury, an issue fully litigated at the September, 1985 hearings 
[1989 proceeding]. With identity of the parties, the subject matter, and the 
issues, the trial court [hearing examiner] properly applied the doctrine of res 
judicata to bar Swasso's Petition for Relief from Order and Amended Petition for 
a new trial.

Precisely the 
same thing is true in this instance; the hearing examiner could have denied this 
claim on the basis of res judicata.

[¶11]   The Order Following Review, denying 
further benefits to Stockdale, is affirmed.