Case Title: Worker's Compensation Claim of Taylor v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 94-110

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Worker's Compensation Claim of Taylor v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div.1995 WY 17890 P.2d 559Case Number: 94-110Decided: 02/21/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

In 
the Matter of the WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF Larry TAYLOR, Appellant 
(Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKER'S 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Natrona County, Dan R. Spangler, 
J.

Robert A. Nicholas of 
Hettinger & Leedy, Riverton, for 
appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., 
John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Gerald W. Laska, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., and 
Courtney R. Kepler, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. 

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

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Larry Taylor 
(Taylor) appeals from a district court decision affirming an award of disability 
granted after an administrative hearing. Taylor claims he is entitled to a 
disability rating greater than that which was given by the hearing 
examiner.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Taylor states the 
following issues:

1.         The 
[hearing examiner] erred as a matter of law when, without any factual basis in 
the record, he denied Larry's claim for lost earnings because of his criminal 
record and past drinking habits.

2.         The 
[hearing examiner] erred as a matter of law by only considering Larry's actual 
wage at the time of injury in determining his pre-injury earning 
capacity.

3.         The 
[hearing examiner's] award of 10% loss of earning capacity should be vacated as 
arbitrary and capricious, highly prejudicial and unsupported by substantial 
evidence.

Appellee Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Division (Division) more appropriately sets forth the issues as 
follows:

1.         
Whether substantial evidence exists to support the hearing examiner's 
determination of employee-claimant's eligibility and award of worker's 
compensation benefits?

2.         
Whether the hearing examiner's decision is arbitrary, capricious, an 
abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law?

FACTS

[¶4]      Taylor was 
injured in a work-related accident on March 29, 1988, which resulted in three 
surgeries to his lower back. Taylor was awarded a 16 percent whole body physical 
impairment, which was paid without objection.

[¶5]      A hearing was 
held before a hearing examiner on June 10, 1993, to consider Taylor's claim that 
the 16 percent whole body impairment should be increased to 62-63 percent based 
on his loss of earnings capacity. In response to Taylor's claim, a vocational 
evaluation report was completed. At the time of his injury, Taylor was making 
$7.33 per hour. Prior to that employment, Taylor testified that he held various 
higher paying jobs ranging from $8.00 to $15.00 per hour. Taylor further 
testified that, had he not been injured, his employer was going to move him to 
another job which paid $13.00 per hour.

[¶6]      The vocational 
evaluation report (Report) noted that Taylor was 36 years old and, at the time, 
an inmate at the Riverton Honor Farm earning $80.00 a month. The Report set 
forth twelve occupations in which Taylor could be employed based on his physical 
capabilities, experience and education, six of which paid a higher wage than he 
was earning at the time of the injury. Taylor testified that he wanted to work 
in Riverton upon his release from the Honor Farm and that jobs in Riverton paid 
less than jobs generally around Wyoming as listed in the Report. The vocational 
expert found that Taylor's earning capacity after the accident was $6.61 per 
hour.

[¶7]      The hearing 
examiner concluded that Taylor had proven a disability level of 26 percent and, 
accordingly, he awarded another 10 percent disability to the 16 percent which 
had already been awarded to Taylor. Taylor disagreed and appealed to the 
district court, which affirmed.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶8]      Wyoming Rule of 
Appellate Procedure 12.09 provides that judicial review is limited to a 
determination of the matters specified in W.S. 16-3-114(c), which provides in 
part that

[t]he 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 law;

*          
*         *         
*         
*         
*

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

Accord Bohren v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 883 P.2d 355, 357 (Wyo. 
1994).

[¶9]      When a question 
of the sufficiency of evidence is raised, "[i]t is well established that this 
court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency if 
the record establishes that the agency decision is supported by substantial 
evidence." Sheridan Race Car Ass'n v. Rice Ranch, 864 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1993). 
Where findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the ruling of the 
trier of fact will be upheld and will not be disturbed by the reviewing court. 
Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59, 63 (Wyo. 1993). Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusion but more than a mere scintilla. Trout v. Wyoming Oil & 
Gas Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1047, 1050 (Wyo. 1986).

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   Taylor claims that the hearing 
examiner awarded him a disability rating which was too low in relation to his 
loss of earnings capacity. Taylor asserts that the hearing examiner improperly 
relied upon the wage he earned at the time of his injury. Taylor maintains that 
the hearing examiner should have used a higher wage in determining the loss of 
earnings capacity. In that respect, Taylor points to his testimony which 
established that he had worked at numerous jobs prior to his injury at wages 
which exceeded $7.33 per hour. Taylor also complains that the hearing examiner 
improperly reduced his earnings capacity by taking into account Taylor's 
incarceration and alcohol problems.

[¶11]   There is substantial evidence in 
the record to support the hearing examiner's conclusion. The Report provides 
substantial evidence by identifying the types of employment that Taylor would be 
suited to perform. The Report noted that the average wage of those jobs was 
$6.61 per hour. Furthermore, the hearing officer voiced concerns about the 
credibility and veracity of Taylor's testimony as it related to the amount of 
work Taylor was capable of doing. It is obvious from the hearing examiner's 
determination that he was not persuaded by the testimony of Taylor. It is within 
the prerogative of the trier of fact to decide what evidence is most dependable. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div. v. Colvin, 681 P.2d 269, 271 
(Wyo. 1984).

[¶12]   In discussing his decision in a 
ruling from the bench, the hearing examiner stated:

In this case, it seems to me that what I am being 
asked to do is really determine the total amount of permanent partial disability 
sustained by Mr. Taylor as a result of the accident and, at this time, to 
include all factors which would include the vocational loss sustained by Mr. 
Taylor. In making this determination, there are numerous factors that I take 
into consideration. Those factors include physical impairment, the worker's age, 
the worker's education, the worker's ability to continue his pre-injury 
employment, the post-injury employment prospects, the pre-injury earnings and 
the post-injury earnings.

I note that it's important to realize that no single 
factor is necessarily determinative of the extent of the total amount of 
permanent partial disability sustained by an injured 
worker.

It is clear from that ruling 
that the hearing examiner was relying upon McCarty v. Bear Creek Uranium Co., 
694 P.2d 93 (Wyo. 1985) and State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div. v. 
White, 837 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1992). The hearing examiner must look at all factors 
together with any other relevant facts or circumstances which would affect a 
claimant's earning capacity. White, 837 P.2d  at 1097. It would not have been 
realistic for the hearing examiner to ignore Taylor's incarceration or alcohol 
problems, which undoubtedly have an effect on a person's ability to find and 
maintain employment. In any event, it is clear from the record that, while he 
considered those factors, the other factors - age, physical impairment, 
education and pre-injury earnings - all favored the determination reached by the 
hearing officer. The hearing officer's decision, based on the factors in the 
record, was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of 
discretion.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   The hearing examiner properly held 
that the $7.33 per hour wage at the time of his work-related injury is the only 
meaningful evidence of Taylor's pre-injury earnings.

[¶14]   Affirmed.