Case Title: Whiteman v. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., Dept. of Employment

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98-218

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Whiteman v. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., Dept. of Employment1999 WY 124987 P.2d 670Case Number: 98-218Decided: 09/07/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
JANICE K. WHITEMAN, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

WORKERS' SAFETY AND 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) 
Certification from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable W. Thomas 
Sullins, Judge.

Donald L. 
Painter, Casper, Wyoming, representing appellant. 

Gay Woodhouse, 
Chief Deputy Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; 
Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell V. Goodman, 
Assistant Attorney General, representing appellee.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and HILL, JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Janice K. 
Whiteman (Whiteman) petitions for review of a denial of permanent partial 
disability benefits. Whiteman limits her appeal to the application of the 
correct version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 to determine eligibility for 
benefits, claiming her "date of injury" is 1996 and the statute in effect on 
that date should apply. At the contested case hearing, both parties consented to 
the use of State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Comp. Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095 
(Wyo. 1992), the law in effect before the statute was amended in 1994. Because 
Whiteman is not entitled to benefits under either version of the statute, we 
affirm the hearing examiner and decline to decide the issue presented on appeal 
at this time.

ISSUE

[¶2]      Petitioner 
Whiteman presents a single issue for our review:

Whether the 
decision rendered in this matter was based upon the proper 
statute.

Respondent State 
of Wyoming, Department of Employment, Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 
replies with this statement of the issue:

Were the Hearing 
Examiner's findings in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence 
when she ruled that Claimant failed to prove a loss of earning capacity 
entitling her to an additional award of permanent partial 
disability?

FACTS

[¶3]      On November 5, 
1988, Whiteman slipped and fell while working at JB's Restaurant in Rawlins, 
Wyoming. Whiteman received a 14% permanent partial impairment award on March 8, 
1991, and a corresponding permanent partial disability loss of earnings award of 
28.5% on September 24, 1992.1 On March 24, 1996, after surgery on 
her lower back, she received another 32% permanent partial impairment award. All 
of the impairment awards arise from the single slip and fall injury of November 
5, 1988. At the hearing, she requested an additional 25.5% permanent partial 
disability loss of earnings award, which would bring her to 100% impairment 
under the statute in effect at the time of her original injury, Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-405 (1991 Repl. Vol.).2

[¶4]      When Whiteman 
filed her injury report at the time of her injury, she stated she was earning 
$2.35 per hour, plus tips, for a total monthly income of $943.00. According to 
the vocational evaluation presented as an exhibit by Whiteman, she is now 
capable of earning $6.81 per hour. The hearing examiner determined she is 
capable of earning $6.71 per hour or $1,118.33 per month. Although she was not 
working at the time, the evaluation found that "[t]he restrictions provided by 
Dr. Pettine and her transferable skills lead me to believe she can return to 
work and maintain employment." The hearing examiner found substantial evidence 
that Whiteman has not suffered an increase of incapacity due solely to her 
injury and that she failed to show she suffered a loss of earnings. Whiteman 
filed a timely appeal. The district court certified the case to this Court 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

DISCUSSION

[¶5]      Judicial review 
of agency action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999): 

[¶6]      To the extent 
necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall 
decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency 
action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole 
record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of 
the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

* * 
*

(ii) Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the 
law;

* * 
*

(E) Unsupported 
by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.

[¶7]      It has been our 
long-standing rule that the law in effect at the time of the injury applies in 
determining and calculating workers' compensation benefits. Shapiro v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers' Comp. Div., 703 P.2d 1079, 1081-82 (Wyo. 1985). At the 
hearing on this matter, both parties agreed that the applicable statute was the 
version in effect when State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Comp. Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1992), was decided.

[¶8]      However, in her 
petition for review, Whiteman insists her "date of injury" is 1996, because she 
is applying for loss of earnings benefits based on the permanent partial 
physical impairment award she received in 1996, which is the first award for an 
injury to her low back. Because Whiteman did not present the new "date of 
injury" argument at the hearing, the record was not developed to determine 
whether the low back surgery might confer a second "date of injury" for the 
purpose of determining the applicable statute. The record supports a finding 
that Whiteman is not entitled to further permanent partial disability benefits 
under either version of the statute. Therefore, we decline to decide which 
version of the statute applies.3

[¶9]      Whiteman's 
original injury occurred in 1988. After surgery to her back, which resulted in 
an additional impairment rating of 32%, she applied for additional permanent 
partial disability loss of earnings benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-405 
(1991 Repl. Vol.), the statute in effect in 1988. White applied that statute as 
follows:

[¶10]   Wyoming Statute 27-14-405(b)(xvi) 
provides in pertinent part the source for an award for loss of earning capacity 
as follows:

One (1) factor 
to be considered is the ability of the employee to continue to perform work for 
which he was reasonably suited by experience or training prior to the injury * * 
*.

The award in 
this case was for disability caused by impairment of earning capacity which is 
loss of the ability to perform work for which White was reasonably suited by 
experience or training. Impairment of earning capacity is determined by taking 
into consideration the following factors:

(a) Physical 
impairment - the nature and extent of the injury.

(b) The worker's 
age.

(c) The worker's 
education.

(d) Ability to 
continue pre-injury employment.

(e) Post-injury 
employment prospects.

(f) Pre-injury 
earnings.

(g) Post-injury 
earnings.

No single factor 
of those listed above is determinative of the extent or existence of loss of 
earning capacity. They are all evidence to be considered together with all of 
the other facts and circumstances in determining whether a loss of earning 
capacity in fact occurred and, if so, the percentage of 
loss.

White, 837 P.2d  
at 1097 (citing McCarty v. Bear Creek Uranium Co., 694 P.2d 93 (Wyo. 
1985)).

[¶11]   The hearing examiner's order 
clearly applied White when it denied additional benefits to Whiteman, making 
these findings:

(a) Physical 
impairment: injury to shoulder, neck and back.

(b) Age: 
41

(c) Education: 
college sophomore

(d) Ability to 
continue pre-injury employment: The Employee-Claimant can no longer work as a 
waitress, but she can work in other jobs, including bank teller, clerk, 
receptionist, retail clerk, and light office work.

(e) Post-injury 
employment prospects: The Employee-Claimant has worked after her injury and is 
capable of finding work again.

(f) Pre-injury 
earnings: $943 per month.

(g) Post-injury 
earning capacity: $1,118.33 per month.

Whiteman 
maintains the outcome would have been different if the hearing examiner applied 
the current version of the statute, which was in effect in 1996. We disagree. If 
Whiteman's "date of injury" is the date of her back surgery in 1996, and 
assuming this would necessitate use of the statute in effect in 1996, the 
applicable version of the statute is now found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h) 
(LEXIS 1999), which provides:

[¶12]   An injured employee awarded 
permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a permanent disability award 
subject to the following terms and conditions:

(i) The injured 
employee is because of the injury, unable to return to employment at a 
comparable or higher wage than the wage the employee was earning at the time of 
the injury;

(ii) An 
application for permanent partial disability is filed not before three (3) 
months after the date of ascertainable loss or three (3) months before the last 
scheduled impairment payment, whichever occurs later, but in no event later than 
one (1) year following the later date; and

(iii) The 
employee has actively sought suitable work, considering the employee's health, 
education, training and experience.

[¶13]   As noted earlier, the hearing 
examiner determined that Whiteman's pre-injury income was $943 per month and her 
current earning capacity is $1,118.33 per month. Additionally, Whiteman has 
already received awards for 74.5% whole body impairment. Her request for an 
additional 25.5% disability award would effectively result in a 100% disability 
award when, clearly, she is not totally disabled. Considering her health, 
education, training and experience, she could find suitable work if she sought 
it, and the hearing examiner correctly refused her application for additional 
disability benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-405.

CONCLUSION

[¶14]   Substantial evidence supports the 
hearing examiner's determination that Whiteman did not suffer a decrease of 
earning capacity due to her injury. Therefore, we affirm.

Footnotes

1 In 1988 the 
permanent partial disability statute allowed for determination of benefits based 
on a combination of physical impairment ratings and loss of earnings. Wyo. Stat. 
§ 27-14-405 (1991 Repl. Vol.). In 1994 the statute was amended considerably and 
provided for separate benefits for physical impairment and permanent disability 
awards for loss of earnings. See 1994 Sess. Laws ch. 86, § 2; Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 
27-14-403(a), -405(h) (LEXIS 1999).

2 Whiteman 
did not apply for permanent total disability pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-406, 
or for modification of benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-605.

3 It is 
interesting to note that these parties have been before us on a previous 
occasion. We find the following discussion in that 
case:

The 
applicable version of the Worker's Compensation Act that governs this matter is 
the law that was in effect on the date of Whiteman's injury. See Manning [v. 
State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div.], 938 P.2d [870] at 873 [(Wyo. 1997)]; 
Painter v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 931 P.2d 953, 954 (Wyo. 
1997); State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div. v. Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 
(Wyo. 1996). The record is unclear about the exact date of Whiteman's injury. 
The Division asserts that the appropriate date to use is February 23, 1996, when 
Whiteman accepted the physical impairment award because Whiteman failed to 
establish any other injury date as required by Rodgers v. State ex rel. Workers' 
Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 246, 249 (Wyo. 1997). In contrast, Whiteman believes 
the accurate injury date to use is 1991.

Whiteman v. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., No. 97-324, slip op. 
at 3, 1999WL308410 at *2 (Wyo. May 18, 1999) (hereinafter "Whiteman 
I").

In 
the case at bar, the parties adopt the opposite positions from those taken in 
Whiteman I. The Division argues the 1991 law should apply, while Whiteman 
asserts 1996 law applies. In Whiteman I, we determined that the date of injury 
was not relevant because the applicable statutory language did not change 
between 1991 and 1996. Id.