Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: ROBBINS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02-97

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: ROBBINS2003 WY 2964 P.3d 729Case Number: 02-97Decided: 02/28/2003
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

                                                                                                
    

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF GAY E.

ROBBINS, 
AN EMPLOYEE OF

SAFEWAY, 
INC.,

Appellant(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING ex rel.

WYOMING 
WORKERS' SAFETY AND

COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,

Appellee(Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Bernard Q. Phelan, Cheyenne, Wyoming  

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Hoke MacMillan, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy 
Attorney General; Gerald L. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David 
L. Delicath, Assistant Attorney General

 
 
          
           
  

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, 
JJ.

 
 
        

            
KITE, Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      Appellant Gay E. 
Robbins appeals from the district court's order which affirmed the hearing 
examiner's denial of her request for worker's compensation benefits for a back 
injury.  We 
conclude substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner's decision and, 
therefore, affirm.

 
   
        

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Ms. Robbins presents 
two issues for our review:

 
  
     

a.

 

Where objective medical evidence shows an "injury" to a 
person's back, and that the person has performed hard physical labor for 
twenty-seven (27) years, and medical opinion shows that such injury probably was 
caused by such labor, is a finding denying coverage under Wyoming's Workers' 
Compensation Act justified where the only evidence against coverage is evidence 
of concurrent degenerative bone disease?

 
 
             
           
              
         
           
 

b.

 

Was the claim timely filed or is there a showing of absence 
of prejudice?

 
 
            

Appellee State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety 
and Compensation Division articulates the issues on appeal as 
follows:

 
 
           
      

I.  Does the expert medical testimony and 
documentary evidence presented by the Division constitute substantial evidence 
supporting the Hearing Examiner's determination that [Ms. Robbins] failed to 
meet her burden of proof?
 
           
        
         

II.  Does substantial evidence support the 
Hearing Examiner's finding that [Ms. Robbins] filed an untimely injury report 
and failed to prove a lack of prejudice arising from her untimely 
filing?

 
 
          
              
   

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Ms. Robbins was 
employed by Safeway, Inc. for more than twenty-seven years.  During her first nine years with 
Safeway, she worked as a meat cutter.  
For the next fourteen years, she was a delicatessen manager.  She returned to cutting meat during the 
last four years of her employment with Safeway.  Both positionsmeat cutter and 
delicatessen managerrequired repetitive physical activities, including lifting, 
bending, turning, and standing.  The meat cutting position was, however, more 
strenuous than the delicatessen position.

 
 
          

[¶4]      John H. Babson, 
M.D. treated Ms. Robbins for various medical problems over several years.  On October 14, 1997, Ms. Robbins visited 
Dr. Babson, complaining of low back pain which radiated down her left leg.  She did not relate that the pain 
resulted from her work activities.  
Ms. Robbins returned to Dr. Babson on February 17, 1998, with a complaint 
of mid-back pain.  On June 2, 1998, 
she again sought treatment from Dr. Babson for her back pain.  Dr. Babson's notes state Ms. Robbins' 
spinal X-rays showed degenerative changes without acute pathology, and he 
diagnosed her as suffering from muscle spasms.  Dr. Babson treated Ms. Robbins for 
work-related right flank pain in January 1999.  She visited him on 
two other occasions in 1999 without mentioning back symptoms.

 
       
     

 [¶5]     On January 17, 2000, 
Ms. Robbins visited Dr. Babson seeking treatment for work-related stress.  The doctor excused her from work, and 
Ms. Robbins apparently filed an injury report with the Division of Workers' 
Safety and Compensation (the division), seeking worker's compensation benefits 
for her mental stress.  The division denied her claim.

 
  
  

[¶6]      Ms. Robbins 
returned to work on February 27, 2000.  
Just two days later, Dr. Babson again excused her from work for "medical 
disability based on job related stress."  
On April 24, 2000, 
Dr. Babson examined Ms. Robbins and, although she complained of low back pain, 
he released her for work because "there [was] no contraindication to her 
returning to work."

 
            
              
     

[¶7]      Ms. Robbins 
worked for several days in May 2000.  
At a May 11, 2000, appointment with Dr. Babson, she complained only of 
work-related stress.  Ms. Robbins 
visited Dr. Babson on May 26, 2000, with continuing muscle spasms and low back 
pain.  He 
referred her to George J. Guidry, M.D., a neurological surgeon.

 
      
    

[¶8]      Dr. Guidry 
examined Ms. Robbins in June 2000.  
He ordered X-rays and an MRI which revealed hypermobility at the L4-5 
level and degeneration of the L5-S1 disk.  
Dr. Guidry also noted arthritic changes.  He eventually recommended surgery to 
alleviate Ms. Robbins' symptoms.

 
     
   

[¶9]      On June 9, 2000, 
Ms. Robbins filed a report of injury with the division, asserting she had 
suffered a work-related back injury.  
Safeway filed an employer's report, stating it did not believe Ms. 
Robbins' injury was work related.  
The division issued a final determination, denying Ms. Robbins' 
claim.  Ms. Robbins 
requested a contested case hearing, and the division referred the matter to the 
Office of Administrative Hearings.

 
    
             
 

[¶10]   Prior to the hearing, Ms. Robbins' 
attorney deposed Dr. Guidry.  Dr. 
Guidry refused to offer an opinion as to the cause of Ms. Robbins' back injury 
because he was not being paid his typical expert witness fee.1  Ms. Robbins then scheduled an appointment 
with Kenneth A. Pettine, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon.

 
     
        

[¶11]   Ms. Robbins testified at the 
contested case hearing.  Dr. 
Babson's medical records, Dr. Guidry's deposition testimony, and a letter 
authored by Dr. Pettine were also submitted as evidence at the hearing.  The division called two Safeway 
employees to testify:  Human 
Resource Representative Stephen Pingree and Store Manager Mark Fenwick.  It also submitted the deposition 
testimony of Duane Kline, M.D. as evidence at the hearing.  

 

[¶12]   The hearing examiner issued an 
order denying benefits.  She 
concluded Ms. Robbins had not met her burden of proving her injury occurred in 
the course and scope of her employment.  
The hearing 
examiner also determined Ms. Robbins had not filed her claim within the time 
limits set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502 (LexisNexis 2001) and she did not 
prove by clear and convincing evidence that neither the division nor her 
employer was prejudiced by her late filing.

 
            
              
              
        

[¶13]   Ms. Robbins filed a petition for 
review with the district court, and the district court affirmed the hearing 
examiner's decision.  Ms. Robbins 
appeals to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

  

DISCUSSION

 

A.        
Causation 
of Injury

 
  

[¶14]   The hearing examiner determined Ms. 
Robbins failed to prove by competent medical authority that her injury arose out 
of and in the course of her employment.  
The hearing examiner also stated Ms. Robbins failed to meet her burden of 
proving her injury occurred over a substantial period of time under Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-603(a) (LexisNexis 2001).  
Ms. Robbins argues 
that the hearing examiner's determination was not supported by substantial 
evidence.

 
          
   

[¶15]   "When considering an appeal from a 
district court's review of agency action, we accord no special deference to the 
district court's conclusions.  
Instead, we review the case as if it had come directly to us from the 
administrative agency."  French 
v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023, 1027 (Wyo. 1998) (citation omitted); 
see also State 
ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. 
Jensen, 
2001 WY 51, ¶9, 24 P.3d 1133, ¶9 (Wyo. 2001).

 

[¶16]   In a worker's compensation case, 
the claimant has the burden of proving she suffered a "compensable injury."  Logue v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 62, ¶11, 44 P.3d 90, ¶11 
(Wyo. 2002); see also State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. 
Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo. 1996).  
To satisfy part of that burden, the claimant must prove the injury 
occurred in the course and scope of employment.  Logue, 2002 WY 62, ¶11; State 
ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo. 1996).

 
 
  

[¶17]   Section 27-14-603(a) sets forth the 
claimant's burden of proving an injury which occurred over a substantial period 
of time:

 
     
            
 

(a)  The 
burden of proof in contested cases involving injuries which occur over a 
substantial period of time is on the employee to prove by competent medical 
authority that his claim arose out of and in the course of his employment and to 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:

            
(i)  There is a direct causal connection between the condition 
or circumstances under which the work is performed and the 
injury;

            
(ii)  The injury can be seen to have followed as a natural 
incident of the work as a result of the employment;

            
(iii)  The injury can fairly be traced to the employment as a 
proximate cause;

            
(iv)  The injury does not come from a hazard to which employees 
would have been equally exposed outside of the employment; 
and

            
(v)  The injury is incidental to the character of the business 
and not independent of the relation of employer and employee.

 
          
         

[¶18]   This court recently refined the 
standard of review for worker's compensation cases in Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 
2002).  We held "the 
substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from 
WAPA contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both 
parties submit evidence."  2002 WY 
91, ¶22.  "Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions.  It is more 
than a scintilla of evidence."  
Jensen, 
2001 WY 51, ¶10 
(citation omitted).  In the case at bar, the hearing examiner made 
factual findings, and both parties submitted evidence; therefore, we will apply 
the substantial evidence test to Ms. Robbins' appeal.

 
    
           
            

[¶19]   Ms. Robbins claims the hearing 
examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because she gave 
more weight to Dr. Kline's testimony than to Dr. Pettine's testimony.  Dr. Pettine examined Ms. Robbins on 
March 20, 2001.  After the examination, he wrote a letter to 
Ms. Robbins' attorney, which stated in relevant part:

 
  
            
 

In 
an attempt to answer your questions, the patient works as a butcher at Safeway 
and has for numerous years.  As far 
as I know, there are no other contributing factors concerning her current back 
condition, which is basically two torn discs at L4-5 and L5-S1.  I think the current back problem is 
likely directly related to the twisting, bending, stooping, and extensive use of 
her upper extremities placing continued stress on the lower lumbar area.  I 
think the injury can fairly be traced to her employment as an approximate cause, 
and I think it is likely she would not be in the current condition she has been 
without the long history of employment as a butcher.

 
        
               
              
   

The 
hearing examiner gave little weight to Dr. Pettine's opinion because it was 
based upon inaccurate and incomplete medical history provided by Ms. 
Robbins.  In this respect, the hearing examiner 
found:

 
    
  

Robbins 
failed to mention that she had not worked any significant amount of time for the 
past one and one half years prior to Dr. Pettine's evaluation, that she was not 
working as a butcher for the entire 27 years but managed the Deli for 14 of 
those years, that her back complaints dated back to 1997, some four years prior 
to Dr. Pettine's examination, or that as recently as January 2000 Robbins 
related her back pain to activities outside her employment.  

 [¶20]  The hearing examiner is the fact-finder 
in a worker's compensation case and is, consequently, charged with determining 
the witnesses' credibility.  
Clark v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division, 2001 WY 132, ¶16, 36 P.3d 1145, ¶16 (Wyo. 2001); Roberts v. R 
& S Well Service, 2001 WY 117, ¶10, 35 P.3d 1219, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001).  When the claimant has not given a 
medical witness complete or accurate medical information, the hearing examiner 
may discount or disregard the medical witness' testimony.  See, e.g., Franks v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 77, 
¶18, 46 P.3d 876, ¶18 (Wyo. 2002); Rice v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 21, ¶16, 19 P.3d 508, ¶16 
(Wyo. 2001).  It was, 
therefore, appropriate for the hearing examiner to give little weight to Dr. 
Pettine's opinion as to the cause of Ms. Robbins' back injury because he did not 
have complete and accurate information when he formed that opinion.

 
   
            
               
        

[¶21]   Ms. Robbins also argues that the 
hearing examiner was incorrect in relying upon the opinion given by Dr. Kline 
because Dr. Kline never examined her.  
Dr. Kline, a retired orthopedic surgeon, reviewed Ms. Robbins' medical 
records at the division's request.  
He testified that, 
based upon his review of Ms. Robbins' medical records, he believed her back 
condition was the result of the aging process and was not caused by her work 
activities.

 
            
               
    

[¶22]   In Russell v. State ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 944 P.2d 1151 (Wyo. 
1997), we found substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's denial of 
benefits when the hearing examiner gave greater weight to the opinion of a 
physician who simply reviewed the claimant's medical records than to the opinion 
of a physician who had actually examined the claimant but did not have a 
complete or accurate medical history.  
It is the hearing examiner's prerogative to examine all the evidence, 
including the medical opinions offered, and determine whether the claimant has 
met her burden of establishing the injury occurred in the course or scope of her 
employment.  See 944 P.2d  at 
1157.  Under 
the particular circumstances of the case at bar, the hearing examiner was 
justified in giving more weight to Dr. Kline's opinion than to Dr. Pettine's 
opinion.

 
   
             
          

[¶23]   Furthermore, the other evidence in 
this case supported the hearing examiner's decision that Ms. Robbins' injury did 
not occur in the course and scope of her employment.  Dr. Babson treated Ms. Robbins for back 
pain for several years.  In many of 
his medical notes, he did not mention the specific cause of her back 
problems.  At her February 17, 1998, appointment, Ms. Robbins indicated her back 
pain was associated with her strenuous activity in caring for her 
grandchildren.

 
     
           
      

[¶24]   The only time Dr. Babson's notes 
indicated an association between Ms. Robbins' work and her back pain was on 
January 11, 1999.  Ms. Robbins 
related that she had pain in her right flank as a result of lifting heavy meat 
at work.  Dr. Babson treated her, 
and, although she saw him two more times in 1999, she did not report any back 
pain.  In January 2000, 
Ms. Robbins told Mr. Pingree her 1999 back injury had healed and the back pain 
she was presently enduring was the result of an incident at home.

 
     
               
         

[¶25]   Dr. Babson saw Ms. Robbins several 
times in the winter and spring of 2000 for work-related stress.  She complained of back pain on a couple 
of those occasions but did not relate it to her work activities.  Indeed, Ms. Robbins worked very little 
during this time period.  After Dr. 
Babson referred her to Dr. Guidry, Dr. Guidry diagnosed various medical problems 
with her back but refused to offer an opinion as to the cause of those 
problems.  Neither Dr. Guidry nor 
Dr. PettineMs. Robbins' only medical witnessesdiscussed the § 27-14-603(a) 
factors for proving a work-related injury which occurred over a substantial 
period of time.  On the record 
before us, we must conclude substantial evidence supported the hearing 
examiner's decision that Ms. Robbins did not satisfy her burden of proving her 
injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment with Safeway.  

 

B.        
Timeliness of Report

 
  

[¶26]   Our holding that Ms. Robbins did 
not prove her injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment is 
dispositive.  We do not, therefore, 
reach the issue of whether  Ms. 
Robbins' injury report was filed in a timely fashion.  

 [¶27]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

 

1Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-610 (LexisNexis 2001), the hearing 
examiner ordered Dr. Guidry to forfeit remuneration for all services rendered to 
Ms. Robbins because he refused to cooperate at his 
deposition.