Case Title: Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey1993 WY 39848 P.2d 1349Case Number: 92-148Decided: 03/19/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming
SINCLAIR 
TRUCKING,

 Appellant 
(Employer-Petitioner),

v.

William J. BAILEY, 

Appellee 
(Employee-Claimant).

Appeal from District 
Court, Carbon County, Larry L. Lehman, J.

Catherine 
MacPherson of MacPherson Law Offices, Rawlins, for 
appellant.

Susan Maher 
Guthrie, Casper, for appellee.

Before MACY, 
C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE and GOLDEN, JJ., and URBIGKIT, J. 
(Retired).

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Employer, 
Sinclair Oil Company Trucking Division (Sinclair), appeals a district court 
order which affirmed a hearing examiner's decision to award worker's 
compensation benefits to employee, William Bailey (Bailey), as a result of 
treatment of hemorrhoids and finally surgery.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Sinclair raises 
two issues:

I. Were the findings and 
conclusions of the administrative law judge arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and thus unlawful under 
W.S. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (1977 Repub.Ed.)?

a. Was the administrative 
law judge's decision supported by a preponderance of the evidence, in the 
record, on each and every element required to be proved by the employee in order 
to sustain his burden of proof under W.S. § 27-14-603(a) (1977 Repub.Ed.) with 
regard to injuries which occur over a substantial period of 
time?

II. Were the findings and 
conclusions of the administrative law judge not supported by substantial 
evidence, and thus, unlawful under W.S. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (1977 
Repub.Ed.)?

a. Was there substantial 
evidence of medical causation as to the employee's hemorrhoids, as opposed to 
the mere thrombosis of the hemorrhoids, so as to entitle the employee to 
benefits under W.S. § 27-14-603(a) (1977 Repub.Ed.)?

[¶4]      Bailey presents 
only a single issue:

I. Whether the 
administrative law judge's decision granting benefits for treatment of 
hemorrhoids is supported by substantial evidence.

BACKGROUND

[¶5]      Prior to Bailey's 
hemorrhoid surgery, he had driven tractor-trailers for approximately thirteen 
years. From March 1988, until November 1990, Bailey drove trucks for Sinclair. 
It was during this period of employment with Sinclair when Bailey developed his 
hemorrhoid condition.

[¶6]      Initially, in the 
fall of 1988 after driving for Sinclair for several months, Bailey experienced 
mild irritation and bleeding. Prior to the fall of 1988, Bailey had never 
experienced any problems with hemorrhoids. This first bout with hemorrhoids 
occurred while Bailey was making a longhaul trip for Sinclair. Bailey reported 
the ailment to his superiors at Sinclair, blaming the seats in Sinclair's trucks 
for the hemorrhoids, and then took a few days of sick 
leave.

[¶7]      Subsequently, 
after Bailey had returned to work with Sinclair, he experienced several 
recurrences of bleeding and irritation. Each outbreak of symptoms was reported 
to Sinclair's management and occurred while Bailey was either driving for 
Sinclair or doing heavy lifting at Sinclair's depot. In November 1990, the 
hemorrhoids thrombosed. The thrombosis required Bailey to visit Dr. Kirsch in 
Rawlins, Wyoming, who lanced the hemorrhoids. Dr. Kirsch related to Bailey that 
the lancing offered only temporary relief and advised surgery for permanent 
repair. Soon thereafter, Bailey had surgery (hemorrhoidectomy) performed by Dr. 
Larson in Casper, Wyoming.

[¶8]      Bailey filed for 
worker's compensation benefits to cover the thrombosis incident and the 
permanent surgical repair of his hemorrhoids. Sinclair objected, contesting the 
propriety of worker's compensation coverage for the hemorrhoidectomy, alleging 
the hemorrhoids were unrelated to work. Initially, the worker's compensation 
division ruled in favor of Sinclair, calling the hemorrhoids a "pre-existing 
condition."

[¶9]      Bailey challenged 
the division's initial determination at an administrative hearing, held in March 
1991. The hearing officer entered an order awarding Bailey worker's compensation 
benefits for the thrombosis and for the subsequent surgical repair. Sinclair 
then sought review in the district court, which affirmed the hearing officer's 
decision. Sinclair now seeks review by this court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶10]   Our standard for reviewing findings 
of fact made in an administrative worker's compensation hearing is well settled. 
If, after examining the entire record, we find substantial evidence to support 
the agency's finding, we will not substitute our own judgment for that of the 
agency. Instead, we will uphold the agency's finding. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable person might accept as supporting the 
agency finding. Aanenson v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Division, 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 1992). In addition, we examine 
only the evidence which favors the prevailing party, allowing every favorable 
inference, while omitting consideration of any conflicting evidence. Matter of 
Injury to Carpenter, 736 P.2d 311, 312 (Wyo. 1987).

[¶11]   We have said that the issue of 
whether or not an injury arose in the course of employment in a worker's 
compensation case is a question of fact. Consolidated Freightways v. Drake, 678 P.2d 874, 877 (Wyo. 1984). The issue of whether Bailey's hemorrhoids arose out 
of his employment with Sinclair is therefore one of fact and need only be 
supported by substantial evidence.

[¶12]   Sinclair contends that we must 
determine if the hearing officer's decision was supported by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Sinclair is correct in asserting that Bailey was required to 
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, each element of W.S. 27-14-603(a) at 
the agency hearing. See Collins v. Goeman General Tire, 682 P.2d 332, 333 (Wyo. 
1984). However, our inquiry is not based on a preponderance of the evidence 
standard, instead we ask: Does the record contain substantial evidence to 
support the hearing officer's conclusion that the claimant successfully 
satisfied the burden of proof required by W.S. 
27-14-603(a).

DISCUSSION

[¶13]   An employee, seeking compensation 
for an injury which occurs over a substantial period of time, is statutorily 
required to prove several elements by a particular burden of proof. Wyoming 
Statute 27-14-603(a) provides:

(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 the 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.

In other words, 
a claimant/employee must prove: (1) the claim arose out of and in the course of 
his or her employment through competent medical evidence, and (2) each of the 
five specified criteria which show a causal connection between the injury and 
employment by a preponderance of the evidence.

[¶14]   Therefore, our threshold inquiry 
is: Does substantial evidence exist to support the finding that Bailey, using 
competent medical evidence, demonstrated that his claim arose out of and in the 
course of his employment with Sinclair? We have said:

To show that the injury 
arises out of or in the course of employment, the claimant must show a causal 
connection between the injury and the employment. This causal connection exists 
when there is a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, 
environment or requirement of the employment.

Johnson v. State 
ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division, 798 P.2d 323, 325 (Wyo. 1990). 
Bailey's competent medical evidence was presented in the form of a deposition by 
Dr. Kirsch who performed the initial lancing procedure on Bailey. Dr. Kirsch 
stated that people who do "a lot of heavy lifting" or "any kind of heavy work" 
will commonly develop hemorrhoids. Dr. Kirsch also testified that hemorrhoids 
are caused, generally, by increased pressure in the rectal area. At the hearing, 
Bailey testified that, from the time he began working for Sinclair, he had to 
lift heavy hoses on and off the trucks he drove and that the seats in Sinclair's 
trucks were in poor condition. Bailey's and Dr. Kirsch's combined testimony 
demonstrates a nexus between Bailey's injury (hemorrhoids) and activities 
(lifting heavy hoses, sitting on bad seats) required by Sinclair. Therefore, we 
hold that substantial evidence exists to support a finding that Bailey's claim 
arose out of and in the course of his employment with Sinclair. 

[¶15]   Next we must determine whether 
substantial evidence exists to support the finding that Bailey proved, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, each of the five elements listed in subsections 
(i) through (v) of W.S. 27-14-603(a). In his decision letter, the hearing 
officer stated generally his findings and conclusions as 
follows:

The condition which the 
Claimant [Bailey] suffered from is one which occurs over a substantial period of 
time. Therefore, the Office looks to the provisions of W.S. 27-14-603 to resolve 
this matter. I find that direct causal connection exists between the Claimant's 
hemorrhoids and the fact that his job required him to spend long periods of time 
sitting in a moving vehicle. Despite the quality and the condition of the seat, 
this type of work subjects the driver to continual pounding and vibration which 
creates a strain and pressure upon the individual. The Claimant's testimony 
indicates that his hemorrhoid condition became progressively worse during the 
course of his employment. Beginning with a mild irritation from time to time to 
continual and severe problems as the condition progressed. The medical testimony 
indicates that the very nature of being a truck driver is conducive to the 
development and aggravation of hemorrhoids. No evidence or testimony was 
presented which related the Claimant's hemorrhoids to any hazard or condition 
outside of his employment with Sinclair. In addition, hemorrhoids are a 
condition which is not uncommon in the trucking industry.

[¶16]   Although each of the five elements 
are specifically enumerated in the statute, they are closely related because 
each contributes to indicate whether the employment environment caused the 
injury. Therefore, the same evidence will often offer support to several of the 
elements.

[¶17]   Bailey and Dr. Kirsch both 
testified that Bailey experienced none of the other common causes of 
hemorrhoids, such as liver disease and constipation; that only those causes 
associated with Sinclair's employment environment were present as a cause of the 
hemorrhoids. Additionally, Dr. Kirsch testified that he, as Bailey's primary 
physician, had never treated Bailey for a hemorrhoid condition prior to November 
1990. Bailey also testified that he had not had any problems with hemorrhoids 
until after he had worked with Sinclair for several months. Based on this 
testimony, it was reasonable for the hearing officer to find that the work with 
Sinclair was likely the "proximate cause" (subsection (iii)) of Bailey's 
hemorrhoids and that the hemorrhoids did not come from a "hazard" (subsection 
(iv)) outside the scope of employment.

[¶18]   Lastly, there is substantial 
evidence to support a finding that hemorrhoids are "incidental to the character" 
(subsection (v)) of truck driving. This support exists in the form of Dr. 
Kirsch's testimony concerning a truck driver's tendency to be inactive and to be 
inadequately hydrated and thus become constipated, plus his testimony that truck 
drivers often have thrombosed hemorrhoids. Therefore, we hold that substantial 
evidence exists in the record to support the hearing officer's finding that 
Bailey properly proved each element required by W.S. 
27-14-603(a).

[¶19]   We note briefly that other 
jurisdictions faced with the issue of worker's compensation coverage for 
hemorrhoids have awarded benefits for both the thrombosis and the underlying and 
pre-existing hemorrhoids based on a theory of "aggravation of a pre-existing 
injury." See Generally Capitol Area Transit v. W.C.A.B. (Duncan), 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 
435, 466 A.2d 249 (1983) (sustaining administrative ruling that claimant's 
hemorrhoids and other rectal problems were caused and aggravated by his job as a 
bus driver); Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Rodriguez, 410 So. 2d 571 (Fla.App. 1982) 
(affirming award of worker's compensation benefits for the claimant's hemorrhoid 
bleeding caused by attempting to lift a heavy wheel); West Point Pepperell v. 
Gordon, 163 Ga. App. 837, 296 S.E.2d 155 (1982) (finding sufficient evidence to 
support an award of worker's compensation benefits to an employee who aggravated 
a pre-existing hemorrhoid condition while operating a hyster truck); Meadors 
Lumber Co. v. Wysong, 262 Ark. 425, 557 S.W.2d 395 (1977) (affirming an award of 
worker's compensation benefits covering a subsequent hemorrhoidectomy to an 
employee who aggravated a pre-existing hemorrhoid condition while lifting a bail 
of wire); Industrial Comm'n v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 128 Colo. 411, 262 P.2d 926 (1953) (finding that competent evidence existed to affirm the award of 
worker's compensation benefits to claimant for surgery performed on pre-existing 
hemorrhoids he re-aggravated while working as a plumber). In fact, the Arkansas 
Supreme Court, in Wysong, rejected the very same argument advocated by appellant 
here: that worker's compensation should only cover the emergency treatment of 
the thrombosis and not the subsequent elective surgery of the pre-existing 
hemorrhoids. 557 S.W.2d  at 396-97.

[¶20]   Based upon our examination of the 
record, we hold that substantial evidence exists supporting the hearing 
officer's decision to award benefits to Bailey for coverage of both his 
thrombosis and his subsequent hemorrhoidectomy. We, therefore, 
affirm.

MACY, C.J., dissented without 
opinion.