Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF INJURY TO ROY E. JONES, AN EMPLOYEE OF JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE. ROY E. JONES, APPELLANT v. JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF INJURY TO ROY E. JONES, AN EMPLOYEE OF JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE. ROY E. JONES, APPELLANT v. JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE1985 WY 92702 P.2d 1299Case Number: 84-294Decided: 07/12/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF INJURY 
TO ROY E. JONES, AN EMPLOYEE OF JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE. ROY E. JONES, 
APPELLANT (CLAIMANT/EMPLOYEE), 

v. 

JESSE'S DISPOSAL SERVICE, 
APPELLEE (RESPONDENT/EMPLOYER).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, CampbellCounty, Paul T. Liamos, Jr., 
J.

 
 
James R. Murray, 
Campbell County Attorney's Office, Gillette, for appellant.

Rocky L. Edmonds 
of Riske, Edmonds & Darrow, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
a denial of additional benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. We 
affirm.

[¶2.]     Appellant raises the 
following issues:

"1. Whether the trial 
court improperly considered facts or information which had not been introduced 
into evidence.

"2. Whether there was 
substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact in denying 
the employee's motion for modification of benefits."

[¶3.]     Appellant injured his 
back on December 16, 1981, while working for Jesse's Disposal Service. He 
reported the incident to a doctor on the same day. He presented a claim for 
temporary total disability with the clerk of court; some of his medical bills 
were paid. He was released for light duty; however, when he reported to work, he 
was told that there were no light-duty jobs and he should return when he was 
given a full release. He claims that he mistakenly believed that, since he was 
not working, he was no longer covered by worker's compensation. He did not 
consult with a doctor again until 1983. He applied for these doctor bills to be 
paid by worker's compensation and was advised that they could not be paid unless 
his case were reopened. In April 1984, he applied for "additional benefits or 
modification" of the award pursuant to § 27-12-606, W.S. 1977,1 on the grounds that benefits were 
"terminated as a result of mistake and/or fraud." His employer protested the 
award; a hearing was held on July 26, 1984, and the court denied the application 
for modification.

IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED 
EVIDENCE

[¶4.]     Appellant contends that 
the decision of the trial court should be reversed because the court improperly 
considered material not admitted into evidence. This material, contained in the 
court file, was not introduced into evidence at the hearing on appellant's 
application for additional benefits or modification.

[¶5.]     At the hearing 
appellant testified that he was pulling a dumpster, slipped, and the dumpster 
came over the top of him, over the back of his leg, and hit him in the head and 
back. The parties stipulated to the admission of the deposition of Dr. Metz, in 
which Dr. Metz testified that appellant had pulled a large container down an icy 
incline, slipped, and was partially run over by the container, that the 
container slid up his legs to his knees and, in the process, struck the lower 
part of his neck and upper thoracic area, that he had been pinned under the 
container and that someone had to push the dumpster off of 
him.

[¶6.]     The worker's report of 
accident, prepared by appellant, was introduced into evidence, describing the 
injury as "[p]ulling a garbage container when I slipped and fell. My hand caught 
in the handle and the container pulled me and hurt my back." The employer 
testified that appellant was pulling the container out when he slipped and fell 
and got hung on the container.

[¶7.]     Material not introduced 
into evidence but referred to by the court, and to which appellant objects, 
consisted of the employer's report stating that the employee was "[p]ulling a 
garbage container when he slipped and fell, hand caught in the handle and the 
container pulled him and hurt his back." and a letter written by Dr. Metz to Dr. 
Baker which described the accident as:

"He pulled a large 
garbage container down an incline, slipped on the ice and was partially run over 
by this container. He says it slid up his legs to his knees, and more 
importantly he was struck in the low cervical and upper thoracic area by the 
heavy metal pickup channel that the trucks latch onto in order to dump the 
contents into the truck. Someone came by and pulled the container off of him, 
and he got up."

[¶8.]     The court denied the 
additional benefits because appellant had not sustained the burden of proving 
that the industrial accident was responsible for his present back condition and 
that, since Dr. Metz had not been advised of the original version of the 
accident, the doctor could not give an opinion as to causal 
connection.

[¶9.]     Section 27-12-602(b), 
W.S. 1977, provides:

"(b) All written reports, 
claims and other writings filed with clerk of court by the parties shall be 
considered as pleadings in a claim whether or not formally introduced into the 
court in a contested proceeding."

This is the crux 
of appellant's argument, i.e., that the court considered reports and claims as 
evidence which should have been considered as pleadings.

[¶10.]  Appellant cites Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, Wyo., 474 P.2d 297 
(1970), as supporting authority. In that case we stated that the claims of the 
employee and the reports of physicians are not evidence in a worker's 
compensation case.

"Neither this letter nor 
any of Dr. Hall's reports were offered or received in evidence. They were 
clearly inadmissible because they were not subject to cross-examination. * * * 
[O]ne of the most basic elements of due process is the right of each party to be 
apprised of all the evidence upon which an issue is to be decided * * *." 
Id., at 
299.

In Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, however, 
there was a total absence of medical testimony relating the complaints to the 
injury. The only indication of a causal connection was a letter from a doctor 
which was not admitted into evidence.

[¶11.]  Appellee, while conceding that the court 
improperly referred to information contained in the court file, contends that 
the issues should be resolved by employing the "invited-error" rule, inasmuch as 
appellant did not object to the court considering documents not formally 
admitted into evidence and furthermore, in closing argument, appellant directed 
the court's attention to the documents contained within the court file. We need 
not determine whether appellant's closing argument was sufficient to negate the 
effect of the court's consideration of evidence not properly admitted. This 
case, unlike Black Watch Farms v. 
Baldwin, supra, contained identical 
evidence properly admitted at the hearing which was sufficient for the trial 
court's decision and obviated any problem concerning the due process right of 
confrontation and cross-examination. The parties stipulated to the admission 
into evidence of Dr. Metz's deposition. In that document he testified to a 
version of the accident that was identical to that contained in his unadmitted 
letter. Appellant's written and signed version of the accident was also admitted 
into evidence. The import of appellant's written and signed version was also 
identical to that contained in the employer's report found in the court file but 
not admitted into evidence. There is a long-standing rule of this court that in 
order to constitute a ground for reversal an error must be prejudicial and 
affect the substantial rights of an appellant. ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips, Wyo., 
632 P.2d 925 (1981). We do not presume prejudicial error; it must be 
established. Anderson v. Bauer, 
Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316 (1984). The evidence and testimony 
received at the hearing were identical to that contained in the reports not 
offered or received into evidence. Thus, no prejudice resulted to appellant 
since the evidence contained in the reports was otherwise properly before the 
court.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE 
EVIDENCE

[¶12.]  In reviewing the sufficiency of the 
evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we accept the evidence of 
the prevailing party as true, leaving out of consideration the evidence 
presented in conflict therewith, and give every favorable inference to the 
evidence of the prevailing party. Matter 
of Injury to Abas, Wyo., 701 P.2d 1153 (1985) (No. 84-253, 
decided 7/3/85). It is incumbent upon the employee to prove each element of his 
claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Collins v. Goeman General Tire, 
Wyo., 682 P.2d 332 (1984); Consolidated Freightways v. Drake, 
Wyo., 678 P.2d 874 (1984). To determine a question concerning the sufficiency of evidence, we 
need to search the record to ascertain if substantial evidence supports the 
trial court's conclusions and judgments. Collins v. Goeman General Tire, supra; 
Plummer v. Gladstone Hotel, 78 
Wyo. 427, 328 P.2d 1118 (1958). Section 27-12-606, W.S. 1977, provides

"* * * for additional 
benefits of any type or nature or for a modification of the amount of the award 
on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon 
grounds of mistake or fraud." (Emphasis added.)

[¶13.]  It was within the trial court's province 
to disregard Dr. Metz's testimony concerning causation when it was in conflict 
with the version of the accident related immediately after the event. Appellant 
contends, however, that, according to the deposition, an incident of far less 
magnitude could have caused the medical condition of the employee. The doctor 
testified that the diagnosed condition could have occurred by "simply reaching 
for something on a shelf * * * some minor movement might be enough to fully 
precipitate the injury." Appellant testified to various other occurrences which 
were of a lesser magnitude and could have created his problem. He testified that 
several years prior to the incident he had torn or pulled a muscle in his neck 
while picking up a small engine, and that he had fallen subsequent to the injury 
for which claim is here made. Appellant testified that he had not suffered any 
other accidents resulting in injury during the two years following his 
work-related accident and preceding his application to reopen his case. Upon all 
of this evidence, the court could not find a causal connection between the 
accident and his present condition. This must be shown before the employee is 
entitled to additional worker's compensation benefits. See, Consolidated Freightways v. Drake, 
supra; Matter of Willey, Wyo., 
571 P.2d 248 (1977).

[¶14.]  There was substantial evidence to support 
the finding that appellant's present condition was not caused by his injury for 
which compensation had been paid. There was no mistake or fraud. The decision of 
the lower court is, therefore, affirmed.

1 Section 27-12-606, W.S. 
1977, provides:

"Where an award of 
compensation has been made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any 
benefits under this act [§§ 27-12-101 through 27-12-804], an application may be 
made to the clerk of district court by any party within four (4) years from the 
date of the last award, or at any time during which monthly payments under an 
award are being made, for additional benefits of any type or nature or for a 
modification of the amount of the award on the ground of increase or decrease of 
incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or fraud."