Case Title: Bodily v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div.

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-11-0013

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF RICK D. BODILY,  AN EMPLOYEE OF JTL GROUP, INC.; RICK D. BODILY v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2011 WY 149Case Number: No. S-11-0013Decided: 11/01/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF 
RICK 
D. BODILY, AN EMPLOYEE OF JTL GROUP, INC.:RICK D. BODILY,Appellant 
(Petitioner),v.STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY 
AND COMPENSATION DIVISION,Appellee (Respondent).
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County
The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge 
 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Stephenson 
D. Emery of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, 
Wyoming
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly 
Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General
 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal 
revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of 
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before 
final publication in the permanent volume.
 
 
GOLDEN, 
Justice.
[¶1]      The Wyoming 
Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied Rick D. Bodily (Bodily) 
benefits for medical expenses related to his L5-S1 micro-lumbar discectomy 
performed by Dr. Debra Steele on January 8, 2008, because Division determined 
Mr. Bodily’s medical treatment to his lower back after June 2, 2005, was not 
related to his compensable work-related back injuries of March 11, 1996, and 
July 8, 2004.  Mr. Bodily requested 
a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to 
challenge Division’s denial of benefits.  
Before conducting the hearing, OAH granted Division’s motion for summary 
judgment against Mr. Bodily.  On 
review of that decision, the district court affirmed.  
 
[¶2]      On appeal to this 
Court, Mr. Bodily contends that genuine issues of material fact about causation 
of the disc herniation exist and asks that we reverse and remand for a contested 
case hearing.  We agree with Mr. 
Bodily’s contention, reverse OAH’s summary judgment, and remand to the district 
court for remand to OAH for a contested case hearing.
 
ISSUES1
 
[¶3]      The deep issue2 in this appeal may be stated as 
follows:

            
Claimant received benefits for work-related lifting and twisting lower 
back injuries in 1996 and 2004, and has experienced back pain intermittently 
since 1996.  Once in 2005 and twice 
in 2007, he had non-work-related lifting lower back injuries.  In early 2008, an MRI revealed a lower 
back herniated disc which a surgeon then repaired.  The surgeon states any one of claimant’s 
several lifting incidents could have caused the herniation.  Do claimant’s testimony and his 
surgeon’s opinion create a genuine issue of material fact about causation of his 
disc herniation precluding entry of summary judgment against claimant on his 
claim for the surgery expenses?
 
FACTS
 
[¶4]      In keeping with 
our standard of review, cited below, we shall consider the record in the 
perspective most favorable to Mr. Bodily and give him the benefit of all 
favorable inferences which may be fairly drawn from the record.  In March 1996, Mr. Bodily injured his 
lower back while working for JTL Group in Casper, Wyoming.  According to Mr. 
Bodily:
 
I 
was in the shop working on a paver taking off an exhaust.  I was lifting and turning at the same 
time when I felt a shooting pain in my lower back that caused me to fall to the 
ground.  I had never felt pain like 
that before.  
 
The 
Division found the March 1996 injury was work related and awarded benefits.  
 
[¶5]      Although Mr. 
Bodily received treatment for his work-related injury, he continued to suffer 
low back pain.  According to Mr. 
Bodily, the “low back pain from [his original] injury [had] never really 
stopped,” and “[s]ince 1996, [he] always had back pain, it just continued to get 
worse.”  Over the years, Mr. Bodily 
treated his low back pain as conservatively as possible until it became 
intolerable which led him to see his family physician and a chiropractor for 
treatment of the low back pain.  

 
[¶6]      In 2004, Mr. 
Bodily reinjured his “lower back from twisting while lifting a box in the main 
office at work.”  Because he 
reinjured his back, he “attempted to have the medical treatment paid for under 
his 1996 initial case but in October 2004 a new case was opened at the 
suggestion of the Division.”  
Despite a new case being opened, the Division determined he had suffered 
a compensable work-related injury and awarded benefits.  He continued to receive benefits until 
June 2, 2005.  

 
[¶7]      In October 2005, 
Mr. Bodily reinjured his back “after lifting a car with three other guys at work 
(the car had to be moved to do asphalt work).”  He continued to treat his low back pain 
conservatively until the pain became intolerable. Once it became intolerable, he 
saw his family physician and a chiropractor for treatment.  His intolerable low back pain was 
located in the same area of his back as his original compensable work-related 
injuries.  
 
[¶8]      Mr. Bodily first 
saw Dr. Steele on October 19, 2007.  
Dr. Steele saw him “for low back pain and left leg pain and obtained a 
history of off and on low back pain since 1999.” Dr. Steele ordered an MRI which 
revealed disc dessication at L5-S1 with a herniated disc or bulge.  On January 9, 2008, Dr. Steele performed 
surgery on Mr. Bodily.  It was 
discovered that Mr. Bodily had three extruded disc fragments causing the pain he 
had been experiencing.  According to 
Dr. Steele:
 
[T]hree 
pieces of disc had come loose from the main disc and insinuated themselves to 
the side of the nerve root, and that was a large piece that had popped out of 
there.  And now I remember that I 
was impressed with how much disc was sitting out to the side of this nerve root, 
which you could not truly appreciate based on the MRI imaging.  
 
Dr. 
Steele testified that “bending while twisting is one of the biggest culprits for 
causing disc problems.”  She also 
testified in her deposition as follows:
 
[Question 
by counsel for Mr. Bodily].  One of 
the questions I have is, based upon actually seeing that disc and also having 
reviewed it on the MRI, can you date the onset of that herniation, of the 
lesion, whatever you call it, and say, yes, that disc herniated back in 1996 or 
1999 or 2004?  Can you say that at 
all?
 
[Dr. 
Steele].  No.
 
Q.        Did 
it look like something that had occurred within the last three months or four 
months?  Can you date it that 
way?
 
A.        
Cannot say.  

 
* 
* * *
 
Q.        So, 
your opinion that you have expressed here today about the causation of this disc 
herniation that you addressed in the surgery on January 9th is dependent upon the accuracy of 
the history that Mr. Bodily provided you.
 
* 
* * *
 
A.        I 
don’t know what caused his disc herniation.  The history given by Mr. Bodily does 
guide the treatment plan, however.
 
Q.        And 
it’s certainly possible that he herniated his disc back in 2004 during this 
incident?
 
A.        It is 
possible, yes.
 
Q.        It’s 
not inconceivable.
 
A.        
Correct.
 
Q.        It’s 
medically possible given what you have seen and your training that he could have 
herniated his disc back in 2004 as described here on this 
report.
 
A.        Yes, 
that is possible.  

 
Later, 
Dr. Steele testified as follows:
 
[Question 
by Division].  My first question is, 
have you reviewed any other medical records from any source other than your own 
regarding Mr. Bodily? 
 
A.        
No.
 
Q.        Let 
me show you what we’re going to mark as Exhibit 3.  This is a record from Dr. Rita 
Emch.  Would you please review that 
quickly?
 
* 
* * *
 
Q.        Do 
you see where he goes in and gives a history of lifting a 
Buick?
 
A.        
Yes.
 
Q.        Could 
an event such as this have caused the herniation that you operated on in 
2008?
 
A.        
Yes.
 
Q.        I 
have another medical record from Urgent Care.  Now, progress notes dated 3-27-07 we’ll 
mark as Exhibit 4.  I would like you 
to look at where he gives a history of present illness on that.  Do you see where it says he lifted a 
kitchen table on Friday?
 
A.        
Yes.
 
Q.        Pain 
on Sunday in his back and hips radiating down both legs?
 
A.        
Yes.
 
Q.        Could 
this event have caused the disc herniation at L5-S1 that you operated on in 
January of 2008?
 
A.        It 
could have.
 
Q.        I am 
going to mark this one Number 5.  
This is from InstaCare of Casper dated September 2, 2007.  If you could look at this, patient’s 
complaints there.  Do you see where 
he complains of lifting landscaping rock and injuring his 
back?
 
A.        
Yes.
 
Q.        Could 
this event have caused the disc herniation which you operated on in January of 
2008?
 
A.        It 
could have.
 
Q.        
Looking at Exhibits A, B and C, which are other records of Mr. Bodily, is 
it possible for you to give an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical 
probability what caused his disc herniation which you operated on in January 
2008?
 
A.        I 
cannot knowingly state if he had a disc herniation in 1999 or if any one of 
these events caused the appearance of his abnormal disc that was noted on the 
2007 MRI.  
 
[¶9]      Dr. Steele sent 
her bill for Mr. Bodily’s surgery to Division.  On January 28, 2008, Division issued a 
“Final Determination Regarding Denial of Benefits,” denying payment for medical 
bills related to the January 9, 2008, operation.  Division determined that Mr. Bodily’s 
work injury of July 8, 2004, had resolved, and that any treatment to his back 
after June 2, 2005, was unrelated to that injury.  Mr. Bodily objected to Division’s 
determination, and the matter was referred to OAH on February 28, 2008.  
 
[¶10]   A contested case hearing was 
scheduled; however, prior to the contested case hearing, Division filed a motion 
for summary judgment.  Mr. Bodily 
opposed Division’s motion for summary judgment.  Without holding oral arguments on the 
motion, OAH issued “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order Granting Motion 
for Summary Judgment and Vacating Hearing” (Order).  In its Order, OAH affirmed Division’s 
denial of benefits.  

 
[¶11]   Mr. Bodily timely appealed OAH’s 
Order to the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District. Following 
briefing by the parties, the district court issued its “Decision Letter,” which 
affirmed OAH’s Order and Division’s denial of benefits.  Mr. Bodily timely filed his “Notice of 
Appeal” appealing the district court’s “Order Affirming Agency Decision” to this 
Court.  
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶12]   “As always, we review an agency’s 
conclusions of law de novo, and we 
will affirm an agency’s legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the 
law.”  Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d 554, 561-62 (Wyo. 2008) 
(internal quotations omitted).  
Review of administrative agency action granting summary judgment in 
workers’ compensation cases will be governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c).  Chavez v. Mem’l Hosp. of Sweetwater 
Cty., 2006 WY 82, ¶ 6, 138 P.3d 185, 188 (Wyo. 
2006).
 
The 
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, 
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 
law.
 
W.R.C.P. 
56(c).  “The record is reviewed . . 
. from the vantage point most favorable 
to the party who opposed the motion, and this Court will give that party the 
benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the 
record.”  Chavez, ¶ 6, 138 P.3d  at 188.  
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶13]   The essence of OAH’s summary 
judgment decision in favor of Division is found in paragraphs 24 through 27 of 
the conclusions of law in its order:
 
24.       The 
Division argued there are not issues of material fact, that medical evidence is 
required to establish Bodily’s work activities were the cause of his herniated 
disc, the only medical evidence in the record failed to establish work as the 
cause of Bodily’s herniated disc and outside intervening causes were more likely 
the cause of Bodily’s herniated disc and that Summary Judgment is 
appropriate.  Bodily argued there 
are issues of material fact, this is a “second compensable injury” case and a 
contested case hearing is appropriate to hear the medical and lay 
testimony.
 
25.       After 
considering all the evidence in a light most favorable to Bodily, it is clear 
the evidence presented established (1) Bodily injured his low back in March 1996 
while lifting and twisting at work; (2) Bodily injured or reinjured his low back 
in July 2004 while lifting and twisting at work; (3) Bodily has had back pain 
off and on since 1996 with periodic flare ups from activities; (4) Bodily sought 
medical treatment for low back pain in October 2005 after lifting a Buick with 
three other men; (5) Bodily sought medical treatment for low back pain in March 
2007 after lifting a kitchen table; (6) Bodily sought medical treatment for low 
back pain after lifting landscaping rocks; (7) an MRI revealed Bodily had a 
herniated disc and the disc was surgically repaired on January 9, 2008; (8) Dr. 
Steele was unable to provide a date at which time Bodily’s herniated disc 
occurred; (9) Dr. Steele indicated the work effort in 2004 was a possible cause 
for Bodily’s herniated disc and (10) other outside work activities, including 
lifting a Buick, lifting a kitchen table and lifting landscaping rocks, were 
also possible causes of Bodily’s herniated disc.
 
26.       Having 
considered all the evidence presented and applying the “second compensable 
injury” theory, this Office finds and concludes medical evidence is required to 
establish causation for Bodily’s herniated disc and the only medical evidence 
presented was from Dr. Steele.  Dr. 
Steele was unable to date the herniated disc and admitted the work incident in 
2004 and a number of outside work activities could have caused Bodily’s 
herniated disc.  Having considered 
all the evidence, including the fact Bodily suffered off and on back pain since 
1996, this Office finds and concludes Bodily’s herniated disc is most likely to 
have resulted from his outside work activities and not from his work injuries in 
1996 or 2004.
 
27.       There are 
no genuine issues of material fact and the Division’s Motion for Summary 
Judgment is therefore granted.
 
[¶14]   Mr. Bodily agrees that his case is 
a “second compensable injury case,” in that in a contested case hearing he must 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Steele’s treatment of his 
herniated disc was the direct result of his work-related lifting and twisting 
lower back injuries of 1996 and/or 2004.  
As we stated in Ball v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 128, ¶ 25, 239 P.3d 621, 628 (Wyo. 2010), “the 
second compensable rule is a causation analysis.”  Mr. Bodily correctly observes that to 
avoid Division’s motion for summary judgment, he need only demonstrate that a 
genuine issue of material fact about causation exists.  He argues that he has done just that 
through his own affidavit and Dr. Steele’s deposition testimony.  He argues that OAH erred when it 
concluded that “medical evidence is required to establish causation for [Mr.] 
Bodily’s herniated disc” and that “[Mr.] Bodily’s herniated disc is most likely 
to have resulted from his outside work activities and not from his work injuries 
in 1996 or 2004.”  In support of his 
argument, Mr. Bodily relies on Gray v. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 2008 WY 115, 193 P.3d 246 (Wyo. 
2008).  Mr. Gray suffered a 
compensable work-related back strain and contusion injury when he fell off a 
horse in mid-June 2002.  Id., ¶ 3, 193 P.3d  at 248.  No MRI was performed at that time.  Id., ¶ 7, 193 P.3d  at 249.  In early September 2002, an MRI revealed 
a disc herniation.  Id., ¶ 8, 193 P.3d  at 249.  Gray informed his doctor that his back 
had been bothering him ever since the fall from the horse and increasing in 
intensity.  Id.  In November and December 2002, Division 
investigated information from an anonymous source that Gray had injured his back 
in September while moving hay in his backyard.  Id., ¶ 11, 193 P.3d  at 250.  Division also had obtained information 
from Gray’s ex-girlfriend that Gray’s back popped in mid-July while he was 
unloading hay at his home.  Id.  In addition, Division had information 
from a man who had loaded hay with Gray a month or two after Gray’s fall from 
the horse and from a man who had worked with Gray on a roofing job a month after 
Gray’s fall from the horse, both of whom related that Gray complained of back 
and leg pain during those activities.  
Id., ¶ 12, 193 P.3d 250.  In early December 2002, Division refused 
further benefit payments to Gray, having determined that his herniated disc was 
not caused by a work-related incident.  
Id., ¶ 4, 193 P.3d  at 
248.  At the contested case hearing, 
Division presented the above-mentioned evidence to support its position that 
Gray’s herniated disc was not caused by the June 2002 work-related fall from a 
horse.  Gray, on the other hand, 
supported his contrary position with his own testimony that he suffered from 
back and leg pain after his June 2002 work-related fall from a horse and with 
the testimony of his treating physician, Dr. Skene.  Id., ¶¶ 10, 13, 193 P.3d  at 250-51.  In particular, Dr. Skene “stated his 
opinion that the disc herniation was recent but could not offer an opinion as to 
the cause and said that any such determination would be speculation on his 
part.”  Id., ¶ 10, 193 P.3d  at 250.  OAH upheld Division’s denial of 
benefits, and the district court affirmed.  
Id., ¶ 4, 193 P.3d  at 248. 

 
[¶15]   On Gray’s appeal, this Court 
reversed, holding that OAH’s decision was unsupported by substantial 
evidence.  Id., ¶ 6, 193 P.3d  at 249.  Of particular interest to Mr. Bodily’s 
appeal is this Court’s holding in Gray that OAH erred when it required Mr. 
Gray to present conclusive medical testimony in order to meet his burden of 
proof.  Id., ¶¶ 16-17, 193 P.3d  at 251-52.  Addressing OAH’s conclusion that Mr. 
Gray could not meet his burden of proof because Dr. Skene’s medical opinion was 
expressed in terms of “can,” “could,” or “possibly,” we 
said:
 
There 
is no requirement that medical testimony be presented in any specific form in a 
workers’ compensation case.  
“Generally, when a single incident is alleged to have caused an injury, 
medical testimony is not required if it is not essential to establish a causal 
connection between the occurrence and the injury.  However, under certain circumstances, 
medical testimony may be essential to establish a causal connection.”  Thornberg v. State ex. rel. Wyo. Workers’ 
Safety & Comp. Div., 913 P.2d 863, 867 (Wyo. 1996) (citations omitted).  In Hansen v. Mr. D’s Food Center, 827 P.2d 371, 374 (Wyo. 1992), we 
found that an employee who had an original compensable injury and was claiming a 
recurrence of that injury more than a year later had met her burden of proof 
without medical testimony.  Here, the medical evidence showed that 
Appellant was injured and that the injury he suffered was of the sort that could 
have occurred during the work-related incident.  That testimony alone may not have been 
sufficient to meet Appellant’s burden of proof on causation, given the gap in 
time between the incident and the MRI that showed the injury. However, it was 
certainly permissible for Appellant to fill that gap with evidence of his 
symptoms between the incident and the diagnosis.  The hearing examiner erred as a matter 
of law when he required Appellant conclusively to prove causation through 
medical testimony.
 
Gray, 
¶ 17, 193 P.3d  at 251-52 (emphasis added).  
Mr. Bodily argues that OAH in his case erred in the same way that OAH in 
Gray erred, namely, by concluding 
that “medical evidence is required to establish causation for [Mr.] Bodily’s 
herniated disc and the only medical evidence presented was from Dr. Steele.  Dr. Steele was unable to date the 
herniated disc and admitted the work incident in 2004 and a number of outside 
work activities could have caused [Mr.] Bodily’s herniated disc.”  
 
[¶16]   We agree.  Moreover, when OAH stated that it 
considered “all the evidence” and concluded Mr. Bodily’s herniated disc “is most 
likely to have resulted from his outside work activities and not from his work 
injuries in 1996 or 2004,” OAH erroneously strayed from its function at the 
summary judgment stage to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact as 
to causation existed, giving the non-movant, Mr. Bodily, the benefit of all 
favorable inferences, and OAH erroneously engaged in weighing all the evidence 
and making credibility determinations.  
OAH was erroneously acting as the trier of fact which was not its 
judicial function at the summary judgment stage of this contested case.  The main issue in this case – whether 
Mr. Bodily’s work-related back injuries in 1996 and 2004 are causally connected 
to his 2008 herniated disc surgery – is in factual dispute, and the evidence 
presented to OAH, including Mr. Bodily’s testimony and Dr. Steele’s testimony, 
permit more than one reasonable inference as to causation to be drawn 
therefrom.
 
[¶17]   We reverse the summary judgment in 
favor of Division and remand to the district court for remand to OAH for a 
contested case hearing.
 
FOOTNOTES
1Mr. 
Bodily stated these issues:
 
A.  Whether the hearing examiner erred when 
he granted the Division summary judgment without conducting a contested case 
hearing.
 
B.  Whether the hearing examiner acted 
arbitrarily and capriciously by not allowing Appellant to present evidence at 
and weigh Appellant’s testimony at a contested case 
hearing.
 
C.  Whether the hearing examiner erred when 
he determined medical testimony was required to establish Appellant’s second 
compensable low back injury as related to Appellant’s original work-related 
injury.
 
D.  Whether the hearing examiner erred when 
he determined Appellant’s injury was “most likely” the result of outside work 
activities and not from Appellant’s work injuries.
 
E.  Whether the hearing examiner acted 
arbitrarily and capriciously by viewing Dr. Steele’s causation opinion in a 
vacuum. 
 
Division stated this issue:
 
Did the OAH hearing examiner correctly apply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(F) in granting summary judgment?
 
Mr. Bodily’s reply brief stated this issue:
 
Whether medical testimony alone is required to prove causation of a 
compensable injury at the summary judgment stage of proceedings before the 
hearing examiner.
 
  2The Court 
commends to all appellate counsel Bryan A. Garner, The Deep Issue: A New Approach to Framing 
Legal Questions, 5 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 1-39 
(1994-1995).