Case Title: RUSSEL R. ROBINSON v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-07-0277

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
RUSSEL R. ROBINSON v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2009 WY 47204 P.3d 987Case Number: No. S-07-0277Decided: 04/02/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
RUSSEL 
R. ROBINSON,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 Peter G. Arnold, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Megan 
Overmann Goetz of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. 
Radosevich, Senior Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Russel Robinson 
worked as a pipe-fitter and welder for 25 years.  He developed respiratory problems that 
he relates to his occupation.  He 
sought medical benefits from the State of Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division 
(the Division).  The Division 
determined Robinson did not suffer from a work-related injury and denied 
benefits.  After a hearing before 
the Office of Administrative Hearings (the OAH), the OAH agreed with the 
Division and denied benefits.  The 
district court affirmed the OAH's decision denying benefits.  We also affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Robinson presents 
three issues for our review:

 
 
I.          
Whether the hearing examiner's decision should be reversed because it is 
not supported by substantial evidence?

 
 
II.         
Whether the hearing examiner's decision should be reversed because it 
lacks critical findings of fact, willfully discounts overwhelming evidence and 
is internally inconsistent, thus making the decision arbitrary and capricious 
and otherwise an abuse of discretion?

 
 
III.        
Whether Robinson can be denied benefits when the hearing examiner's 
decision misapplied the appropriate legal burdens of proof, thereby committing 
errors of law?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Robinson is 
approximately 52 years of age and worked as a welder and pipe-fitter for 25 
years.  In his occupation, he was 
potentially exposed to welding fumes, grinding debris, toxic material and 
petroleum products.  Robinson did 
not wear a respirator.  He wore a 
welding shield, which sometimes trapped fumes under the shield.  Occasionally, when one was available, 
Robinson would wear a mask.  
According to Robinson, however, a mask did little to prevent him from 
inhaling fumes.  

 
 
[¶4]      On September 3, 
2004, Robinson consulted with his general physician, Dr. Laurie Palmer, at a 
regularly scheduled appointment for a general physical.  According to Dr. Palmer's notes, 
Robinson exhibited undue shortness of breath but no cough, wheezing or coughing 
up blood.  She ordered a chest 
x-ray.  

 
 
[¶5]      According to his 
report of injury, later that same day Robinson "[i]nhaled steam, coke dust and 
welding fumes within coker unit at Frontier Refinery causing respiratory 
distress which continued to escalate."  
The chest x-ray already ordered by Dr. Palmer was taken September 8, 
2004.  The radiology report stated 
the x-ray revealed a "[n]onfocal interstitial prominence."  Robinson sought further medical 
attention from Dr. Palmer on September 10, 2004, complaining he had trouble 
breathing, he was coughing and his chest hurt.  Dr. Palmer took him off work, put him on 
oxygen and arranged for a chest CT scan and pulmonary function tests 
(PFTs).  The radiology report from 
the CT scan, taken the same day, was "minor nonfocal peribronchial thickening 
with no cystic changes, bronchiectasis and no honeycombing is present."  The results of the PFTs, conducted 
September 13, 2004, were normal.  

 
 
[¶6]      Dr. Palmer 
referred Robinson to Dr. Laura Brausch, a pulmonary physician.  Although Dr. Brausch does not specialize 
in occupational lung disorders, she has been a pulmonary physician for 21 
years.  Dr. Brausch first examined 
Robinson on September 14, 2004.  
From the beginning she suspected welder's induced pulmonary disease: "I 
am concerned that this patient with his wheezing, cough, mucoid sputum 
production, snoring and abnormal CT scan of the chest may have welder's induced 
pulmonary disease or he may actually have an infection of some sort."  She personally read the x-ray and CT 
scan.  She reported his CT scan 
showed "multiple small nodular type areas with some bronchiectasis."  His x-ray showed "the suggestion of 
infiltrates." She also diagnosed him with hypoxemia, an abnormally low amount of 
oxygen in the blood.  She kept him 
off work and on oxygen.  She gave 
him an antibiotic to take in case he had an infection and arranged to see him 
again in a month.  

 
 
[¶7]      Robinson's next 
appointment with Dr. Brausch was on October 20, 2004.  Robinson reported feeling a little 
better and his cough was down.  He 
continued to complain of shortness of breath with exertion.  Dr. Brausch continued him on oxygen, 
with an increased flow rate upon excess activity.  Dr. Brausch noted at this time that 
Robinson "has interstitial lung disease and bronchiectasis on his CT scan.  He has hypoxemia, and he is a 
welder.  I am concerned that there 
is a welding component to this."  
She arranged for Robinson to undergo a bronchoscopy and transbronchial 
biopsies.  

 
 
[¶8]      Dr. Brausch 
conducted the bronchoscopy and transbronchial biopsies on November 5, 2004.  The bronchoscopy revealed minimal foamy 
mucus but no other abnormalities in either lung.  Four biopsy specimens were taken from 
Robinson's right lung, which were sent to a lab for testing.  Dr. Brausch's assessment of Robinson's 
condition at the end of this procedure was "interstitial lung disease and 
bronchiectasis with some occupational exposure."  She reported the etiology for his 
hypoxemia and lung disease was still to be ascertained.  

 
 
[¶9]      On November 8, 
2004, the report from the lab on the biopsy specimens was completed. The 
diagnosis listed in the report in pertinent part stated there was "no 
interstitial lung disease identified."  
Dr. Brausch testified by deposition that, in her mind, this result was 
not definitive.  She explained her 
biopsies were blind samples.  Thus, 
if there was any clear lung tissue along with diseased tissue she might simply 
have missed the diseased tissue with her biopsy samples.  

 
 
[¶10]   Robinson saw Dr. Brausch again on 
December 17, 2004.  Dr. Brausch 
stated she was "following him for a vague interstitial lung disease associated 
with very significant hypoxemia."  
Her diagnosis was "interstitial lung disease with hypoxemia and we can 
only find his job as a welder as the etiologic agent for this."  She ordered another CT scan, which was 
performed on December 20, 2004.  The 
radiology report from this scan noted "minimal subpleural densities particularly 
in the lower lobes with no discrete nodules, infiltrates, or other abnormality 
identified."  Dr. Brausch again 
testified this was not conclusive, stating that if Robinson's lung disease 
involved an inflammatory process it could have improved by the time that CT scan 
was taken.  

 
 
[¶11]   The Division denied Robinson's 
claim on October 25, 2004.  In 
response, Dr. Brausch wrote a letter to the Division dated December 17, 
2004.  In the letter she 
stated:

 
 
Mr. 
Robinson is a 51-year-old male who has worked in the welding industry mostly 
unprotected for 25 years.  He has 
hypoxemia and interstitial lung infiltrates for which we have performed a 
bronchoscopy.  We have a negative 
bronchoscopy with negative cystology and negative cultures except for a very 
sensitive bacteria on the wash for which he is receiving antibiotics.  This is not the cause of his problem, 
however.  His breathing tests are 
normal but he has very significant hypoxemia during the day and the night with 
oxygen saturations dropping to 74% on room air just by getting dressed and his 
nighttime pulse oximetry shows that 60% of the night is spent with oxygen 
saturations less than 88%.

 
 
The 
patient for a while was coughing up some sputum but now has stopped that.  His main complaint is shortness of 
breath and hypoxemia.

 
 
The 
CT scans have shown interstitial lung infiltrates.  It is felt that his job working as a 
welder with various different companies is responsible for these interstitial 
infiltrates as an alveolitis type pattern.  
It is noted that his cough has improved since he stopped welding and he 
does feel better although he remains hypoxemic.  

 
 
[¶12]   At her deposition Dr. Brausch again 
confirmed that, although she could not be one hundred percent certain without 
further, invasive testing, the evidence before her pointed to the probable 
conclusion that Robinson suffered from work-related lung disease.  The basis for her opinion 
was:

 
 
            
We have a history consistent with it, we have a patient who's a nonsmoker 
in their 40s.  The picture is not 
clouded by smoking-induced lung disease.  
We have a very strong response to staying away from the work 
environment.  And we have a history 
that suggests that this was not an acute bronchitis but rather a chronic illness 
that improved, very, very nicely, very shortly after being away from the 
exposure. 

 
 
[¶13]   Even so, Dr. Brausch, because the 
results of the transbronchial biopsies were inconclusive in her mind, and 
because she did not have definitive proof of welder's lung disease, referred 
Robinson to National Jewish Hospital for a second opinion.  National Jewish Hospital specializes in 
respiratory ailments.  Robinson was 
seen by Dr. Cecile Rose, a staff physician in the Occupational and Pulmonary 
Medicine Clinic of National Jewish Hospital on October 11, 
2005.

 
 
[¶14]   Dr. Rose wrote a comprehensive 
report incorporating her findings.  
The report is officially titled: "Occupational and Environmental Medicine 
Clinic Summary."  Dr. Rose states in 
the Summary Robinson came to her seeking evaluation of possible welder's 
lung.  Her goal was to establish 
diagnostic clarity and assess Robinson's eligibility for worker's 
compensation.  

 
 
[¶15]   Robinson gave Dr. Rose a detailed 
work history.  He stated he began 
working as a pipe-fitter and welder in 1981 and had worked in the field for 
various companies ever since.  
Robinson also gave a history of his respiratory complaints, going back 
approximately ten years.  Robinson 
stated every time he was off work during that time-frame his respiratory 
condition improved.  Dr. Rose 
specifically related Robinson told her he had been off work since the instant 
problems developed in 2004 and "many of his respiratory and systemic symptoms 
improved after leaving the work environment."  

 
 
[¶16]   Dr. Rose reviewed the medical 
records of Dr. Brausch as well as other medical records. The tissue slides and 
washing cytology slide obtained by the 2004 transbronchial biopsy were reviewed 
in-house at National Jewish Hospital. Dr. Rose reviewed these results and the 
results of numerous other prior diagnostic studies.  Robinson also underwent extensive 
testing at National Jewish Hospital including a new CT scan.  

 
 
[¶17]   In her impressions, Dr. Rose noted 
Robinson's improvement over the years when away from the work-place.  With regard to his respiratory problems 
at these times she stated: "[p]robably some of these episodes are attributable 
to metal fume fever from exposure to galvanized welding fumes."  Also in her impressions Dr. Rose 
concluded:

 
 
No 
clear evidence of interstitial lung disease, with findings on chest CT scan more 
suggestive of airways inflammation, normal resting pulmonary function tests, no 
gas exchange abnormalities with exercise, and no abnormalities on transbronchial 
biopsy.  

 
 
In 
Dr. Rose's final opinion, she states: 

 
 
At 
this time, based on his normal pulmonary function at rest and with exercise, 
along with the subtle nonspecific findings on his CT scan and normal 
transbronchial biopsies, I cannot say to a reasonable degree of medical 
probability that Mr. Robinson has a work-related lung disease.  

 
 
[¶18]   Dr. Brausch saw Robinson again 
after she received Dr. Rose's Summary.  
By this time, Robinson's hypoxemia had resolved.  Dr. Brausch noted that Robinson's 
"National Jewish report was pretty good."  
Dr. Brausch continued, however, to maintain her diagnosis of welder's 
lung disease.  

 
 
[¶19]   At Robinson's contested case 
hearing, the hearing officer was presented with all the medical records from Dr. 
Palmer, Dr. Brausch, and Dr. Rose.1  As stated above, Dr. Brausch testified 
by deposition.  Her deposition was 
taken before she had received the results from Dr. Rose and there was no follow 
up deposition.  Robinson was the 
only live witness.  

 
 
[¶20]   The hearing officer's decision 
essentially came down to a determination of whether to accept Dr. Brausch's 
opinion or Dr. Rose's opinion.  The 
hearing officer chose to rely on the opinion of Dr. Rose.  In pertinent part, the final order 
reads:

 
 
23.       There are 
conflicting medical opinions and possible causes for Robinson's breathing 
problems.  Dr. Brausch is a 
pulmonologist and treated Robinson for his pulmonary condition.  Dr. Brausch's testimony clearly 
established Robinson's pulmonary condition was the result of exposure over a 
substantial period of time pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(a)(i) through 
(v) (LEXIS 2004) and opined Robinson had welder's lung from work exposure.  However, Dr. Brausch did not have the 
results [of the evaluation] from National Jewish Hospital where she sent 
Robinson for a second opinion.  

 
 
            
* * * *

 
 
25.       Robinson 
was sent to National Jewish Hospital by Dr. Brausch for a second opinion and to 
confirm Dr. Brausch's diagnosis of interstitial lung or welder's disease.  Dr. Rose indicated he [sic] could not 
say Robinson had any work-related lung disease and the etiology of Robinson's 
hypoxemia was unknown.  National 
Jewish Hospital is known for its pulmonary medicine and the opinion of Dr. Rose 
is considered to be more persuasive.  
This Office finds the testing and opinions from Dr. Rose to be more 
persuasive and benefits should be denied.

 
 
On 
review, the district court affirmed the hearing officer's 
decision.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Evidentiary 
Issues

 
 
[¶21]   We review evidentiary issues to 
determine if the OAH's decision is supported by substantial evidence.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) 
(LexisNexis 2007).  We review the 
entire record in order to determine if the OAH's decision against Robinson is 
against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.  Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 
84, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo. 2008).

 
 
[¶22]   Robinson throws a great many 
arguments our way on what are essentially evidentiary issues.  The common thread is his argument that 
the hearing officer was unjustified in relying on Dr. Rose's medical 
opinion.  Robinson's primary reason 
is that Dr. Rose's opinion lacks proper foundation.  Robinson complains that the hearing 
officer did not properly take into account that his examination with Dr. Rose 
occurred one year after he began seeking treatment for his respiratory 
problems.  By his and his treating 
physician's testimony, his respiratory condition had improved a great deal 
during that year, most especially immediately after he left his work 
environment.

 
 
[¶23]   The problem with Robinson's 
argument is that, as reflected in her Summary, Dr. Rose was well-aware of his 
respiratory condition in September 2004 and his improvement since leaving his 
work environment.  The question 
before her was whether Robinson had a permanent, work-related lung disease (as 
versus something temporary such as metal fume fever).  The immediate and prior diagnostic 
testing and Robinson's presentation at his exam, in her opinion, did not support 
a finding of work-related lung disease to a reasonable degree of medical 
probability.2

 
 
[¶24]   The evidence against Dr. Rose's 
opinion is not overwhelming.  The 
primary evidence in favor of Robinson having work-related lung disease comes 
from Dr. Brausch.  Robinson argues, 
as his treating physician, Dr. Brausch's opinion should be given primary 
weight.  Certainly her status as his 
treating physician should be given consideration, but it is not decisive of the 
weight to be given her opinion.  It 
must be weighed against the other evidence in the case.  Dr. Rose, while she did not treat 
Robinson on an ongoing basis, did have the benefit of reviewing all Robinson's 
medical records from Dr. Brausch, including diagnostic studies.  Robinson also gave her an extensive 
history of his career and his respiratory problems.  Finally, Dr. Rose did her own extensive 
testing on Robinson.  Because of the 
comprehensive review and examination by Dr. Rose, Dr. Brausch's opinion does not 
enjoy an overwhelming advantage simply because she is Robinson's treating 
physician.

 
 
[¶25]   Additionally, there are other 
factors weighing against Dr. Brausch's diagnosis.  Most importantly, the diagnostic tests 
in general do not support her opinion.  
We recognize Dr. Brausch testified as to why she did not consider the 
outcomes of the diagnostic testing such as the bronchoscopy, the transbronchial 
biopsies and the later CT scans conclusive.  The outcomes of these objective tests, 
however, are still part of the entire evidentiary package.

 
 
[¶26]   Robinson also argues the hearing 
officer improperly ignored his testimony regarding causation.  Robinson attributed his respiratory 
problems to his work:

 
 
Well, 
I feel like it's related to my work, because I  once I was put on oxygen and 
didn't go to work, it  some of the symptoms seemed to get better and haven't 
gotten worse.  And upon examining 
some of these reports that we've read, it seems to point in that direction.  And, also, just the knowledge of the 
things that I've been through and the nasty, polluted environments that I have 
worked in in the past, that I feel this is directly related to my 
work.

 
 
This 
testimony is merely a recitation of his medical and work history available to 
both Dr. Brausch and Dr. Rose, with his personal opinion as to its significance 
attached.  Dr. Rose gave this 
information a different significance.  
We cannot say Robinson's testimony, even combined with Dr. Brausch's 
testimony and records, amounts to overwhelming evidence in contradiction to Dr. 
Rose's medical opinion.

 
 
[¶27]   Reviewing the entire record, we 
cannot say the OAH decision is against the overwhelming weight of the 
evidence.  We therefore reject 
Robinson's evidentiary challenges.

 
 
Arbitrariness

 
 
[¶28]   Even though the decision is 
supported by substantial evidence, it may still be deemed arbitrary, capricious, 
or otherwise not in accordance with law:

 
 
The 
arbitrary and capricious standard remains a "safety net' to catch agency action 
which prejudices a party's substantial rights or which may be contrary to the 
other W.A.P.A. review standards yet is not easily categorized or fit to any one 
particular standard." . . . [T]he arbitrary and capricious standard will apply 
if the hearing examiner refused to admit testimony or documentary exhibits that 
were clearly admissible or failed to provide appropriate findings of fact or 
conclusions of law.  This listing is 
demonstrative and not intended as an inclusive catalog of all possible 
circumstances.  

 
 

Dale, 
¶ 23, 188 P.3d  at 561. 

 
 
[¶29]   In his first claim of 
arbitrariness, Robinson argues the hearing officer failed to make adequate 
findings of fact regarding certain statutory factors.  Both Robinson and Dr. Brausch claim 
Robinson developed lung disease through his work exposure over time.  A claimant seeking compensation for an 
injury occurring over time is required

 
 
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.

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(a) (LexisNexis 2007).  Robinson claims the hearing officer 
failed to consider any of these factors.

 
 
[¶30]   While we agree the hearing officer 
did not expressly consider these factors, such consideration was 
unnecessary.  The first step is for 
the claimant to prove he has an injury.  
The Worker's Compensation Act defines "injury" as

 
 
any 
harmful change in the human organism other than normal aging and includes damage 
to or loss of any artificial replacement and death, arising out of and in the 
course of employment while at work in or about the premises occupied, used or 
controlled by the employer and incurred while at work in places where the 
employer's business requires an employee's presence and which subjects the 
employee to extrahazardous duties incident to the business. 

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (LexisNexis 2007).  The injury claimed by Robinson was a 
work-related lung disease.  Dr. Rose 
refuted he had such a disease.  
Because the hearing officer accepted Dr. Rose's opinion, there was no 
need to go any further.

 
 
[¶31]   In his second claim of 
arbitrariness, Robinson argues the hearing officer erred in not articulating 
specific and detailed factual findings supporting his decision to find Dr. 
Rose's opinion more persuasive than Dr. Brausch's.

 
 
            
We have held it essential to surviving judicial review that the record of 
a contested agency action contain such factual findings as would permit a court 
to follow the agency's reasoning from the evidentiary facts on record to its 
eventual legal conclusions.  Larsen v. Oil and Gas Conservation 
Comm'n, 569 P.2d 87, 90-91 (Wyo. 1977); Powell v. Board of Trustees, Crook County 
School District No. 1, 550 P.2d 1112, 1120 (Wyo. 1976).  Similarly, we have held that a contested 
case hearing must provide, and the record of that proceeding must document, 
information sufficient to the making of a reasonable decision.  Absent such information, the agency 
decision must be set aside as arbitrary.  
Western Radio Communications, Inc. 
v. Two-Way Radio Service, Inc., 718 P.2d 15, 20 (Wyo. 1986); Monahan v. Board of Trustees, Elementary 
School District No. 9, 486 P.2d 235, 237 (Wyo. 1971).  

 
 

Newman 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 
2002 WY 91, ¶ 16, 49 P.3d 163, 169 (Wyo. 2002).  

 
 
[¶32]   At the risk of being repetitive, we 
will summarize the evidentiary story as it unfolded and as gleaned from the 
hearing officer's findings of fact.  
Robinson was a pipe-fitter/welder for 25 years.  During that time he was exposed to 
air-born particulates and fumes known to cause lung disease.  Robinson now suffers from some form of 
pulmonary deficiency.  His 
respiratory difficulties, although they have not completely resolved, improved 
when he stopped working.  The 
circumstantial assumption is that Robinson's pulmonary problem is a chronic 
industrial injury, such as welder's lung disease.  This is the position of Robinson's 
pulmonary physician, Dr. Brausch.  
While objective medical tests provide no support for welder's lung 
disease, Dr. Brausch is quick to point out that neither do the tests rule out 
welder's lung disease.  She 
therefore maintains her diagnosis.  

 
 
[¶33]   On the other side is Dr. Rose.  Dr. Rose was well-aware of Robinson's 
work history.  She knew Robinson's 
symptoms improved after he left his work environment and it had been 
approximately one year from the time he ceased working to her examination of 
him.  She reviewed Dr. Brausch's 
notes and tests.  She conducted her 
own extensive testing, including a new CT scan.  In the end, after reviewing all the 
data, she could not say with a reasonable degree of medical probability that 
Robinson has a work-related lung disease.

 
 
[¶34]   As the finder of fact, the hearing 
examiner is charged with resolving conflicting testimony and weighing the 
evidence.  Hicks v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
& Comp. Div., 2005 WY 11, ¶ 18, 105 P.3d 462, 470 (Wyo. 2005).  In his order, the hearing officer 
discussed Dr. Rose's Summary at length.  
His discussion relates that Dr. Rose took Robinson's medical history, 
including his relation of events and Dr. Brausch's records, into account in 
rendering her opinion.  She also 
conducted her own examination and objective testing.  The hearing officer also discussed Dr. 
Brausch's treatment and diagnosis of Robinson at length.  The hearing officer recognized that he 
was faced with two contradicting medical opinions.  He chose Dr. Rose's opinion as the more 
credible:

 
 
Weighing 
the medical opinions offered in this case, this Office finds the opinion of Dr. 
Rose at National Jewish Hospital to be more persuasive.  National Jewish Hospital is known for 
its pulmonary medicine.  Dr. Rose 
indicated he [sic] could not say Robinson had any work-related lung disease and 
the etiology of Robinson's hypoxemia was unknown.  This Office concludes the testing and 
opinions from Dr. Rose to be more persuasive.  

 
 
[¶35]   The hearing officer does not spell 
out further why he believed Dr. Rose to be more persuasive.  While he easily could have filled in 
some blanks, we find, under the specific facts of this case, it was unnecessary 
to do so.  The order is complete 
enough to assure us that the hearing officer engaged in a reasoned analysis of 
all the facts in arriving at his final credibility 
determination.

 
 
Otherwise 
not in accordance with law

 
 
[¶36]   Robinson argues the hearing officer 
erred by failing "to consider that the work injury of September 3, 2004 directly 
caused the respiratory and lung injuries, and/or substantially and materially 
aggravated a preexisting condition."  
Robinson grounds this argument in our prior rulings that a hearing 
officer "has an obligation to invoke and apply the rules of law that support a 
claimant's theory of the case."  Carabajal v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety & Comp. Div., 2005 WY 119, ¶ 21, 119 P.3d 947, 954 (Wyo. 2005); 
Pino v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety & Comp. Div., 996 P.2d 679, 687 (Wyo. 2000).  The information presented, however, must 
be sufficient to alert the hearing officer to the claimant's theory of the case. 

 
 
[¶37]   Robinson proceeded on only one 
theory  that he suffered an injury occurring over a substantial period of 
time.  As Dr. Brausch put it, 
Robinson was suffering from interstitial lung disease induced by 25 years as a 
welder and pipe-fitter.  The facts 
do not readily support any alternate theory.  There also was nothing in Robinson's 
argument below that can be considered as properly alerting the hearing officer 
that he intended to proceed under any other alternate theory.  In fact, at the hearing his attorney 
expressly rejected the possibility that this could be a one-time incident.  In light of the evidence and Robinson's 
argument below, we find the hearing officer did not err when he did not, sua 
sponte, consider alternate theories of recovery on Robinson's 
behalf.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶38]   The OAH decision denying benefits 
to Robinson is supported by substantial evidence.  Dr. Rose took into account all relevant 
information in reaching her opinion that Robinson did not, to a degree of 
medical probability, suffer from a work-related lung disease.  The decision and order are not otherwise 
arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.  The denial of benefits is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Robinson also underwent an independent medical examination (IME) at the 
request of the Division.  The 
medical records from this examination were also introduced.  The IME physician reported no pulmonary 
problems but instead opined Robinson suffered from coronary disease.  Robinson thereafter was examined by a 
cardiologist who found no coronary problems as identified in the IME.  Consequently the hearing officer 
expressly discounted the IME opinion, making that portion of the evidence 
largely irrelevant to our analysis.  
It will not be further addressed.

 
 

2Robinson categorizes Dr. Rose's opinion as uncertain and 
inconclusive.  Robinson claims Dr. 
Rose's opinion amounts to simply a statement that she could not confirm Dr. 
Brausch's diagnosis, not that she disagreed with it.  We find no such ambiguity in the 
statement "I cannot say to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. 
Robinson has a work-related lung disease."  
If it must be rephrased, it rephrases easily into Dr. Rose stating that, 
in her opinion, it is not medically probable that Robinson has a work-related 
lung disease.