Case Title: State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Roggenbuck,

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96-145

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Roggenbuck,1997 WY 61938 P.2d 851Case Number: 96-145Decided: 05/16/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., 
WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, and LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 
NUMBER ONE

Appellants(Petitioners), 

v. 

Robert A. ROGGENBUCK, 

Appellee(Respondent).

Appeal from the District Court, Laramie 
County

The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

William U. Hill, Attorney General, and 
Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, for State of 
Wyoming.

Mark R. Stewart of Hickey, Mackey, Evans, 
Walker & Stewart, Cheyenne, WY, for Laramie County School Dist. No. 
1.

Representing 
Appellee:

George Santini, 
Cheyenne.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, 
and LEHMAN, JJ., and HARTMAN, D.J.

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division (Division) and Laramie County School 
District No. 1 (employer) appeal from an order of the Office of Administrative 
Hearings awarding worker's compensation benefits to Roggenbuck (claimant) for 
the material aggravation of a preexisting condition. 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The Division 
identifies two issues:

A. Whether the 
Office of Administrative Hearings' order awarding benefits for the material 
aggravation of a preexisting condition is supported by substantial 
evidence.

B. Whether the 
Office of Administrative Hearings' findings of fact and order awarding benefits 
satisfies the specificity requirements of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure 
Act.

FACTS

[¶4]      With a history of 
back problems, scars from two previous back surgeries, and a permanent partial 
disability of 60 percent, claimant alerted his employer of a work-related injury 
to his back incurred nine days into his new employment. The injury resulted in a 
third back surgery. Employer put claimant on his proof that the work-related 
injury materially aggravated his preexisting recurrent back problems by 
requesting a hearing. The Hearing Examiner found claimant had sustained his 
burden of proof. Following a timely Petition for Judicial Review, the district 
court certified the matter to this court. W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶5]      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. In addition, we 
examine only the evidence which favors the prevailing party, allowing every 
favorable inference, while omitting consideration of any conflicting 
evidence.

Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. 
Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 876 (Wyo. 
1994) (quoting Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey, 848 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Wyo. 
1993)) (citations omitted). While the reviewing court may not substitute its 
judgment for that of the agency when reviewing findings of fact, a similar 
precept does not apply to agency conclusions of law. An agency's conclusions of 
law will be affirmed only if they are in accordance with the law. Matter of 
Cordova, 882 P.2d 880, 882 (Wyo. 1994); Aanenson v. State ex rel. 
Worker's Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 
1992).

DISCUSSION

Substantial 
evidence

[¶6]      The burden is 
upon the claimant to prove that his work accident, not his preexisting 
condition, caused the necessity for the surgery. Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996); Matter of Claim of Fortier, 910 P.2d 1356, 
1358 (Wyo. 1996). While aggravation of a preexisting condition is a compensable 
injury, Matter of Injury to Carpenter, 736 P.2d 311, 312 (Wyo. 1987), 
claimant must prove that his employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined 
with the disease or infirmity to produce the disability for which compensation 
is sought. Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59, 61 (Wyo. 1993); 
Lindbloom v. Teton Int'l, 684 P.2d 1388, 1390 (Wyo. 
1984).

[¶7]      The record 
discloses that the hearing examiner took note of the claimant's preexisting 
condition. Medical evidence included a statement by the doctor treating claimant 
since January of 1991 that 50 percent of claimant's current condition was due to 
the instant injury. This percentage included the normal aging process and normal 
daily living activities. A comparison of an MRI report after the accident to one 
performed two and a half years earlier indicates a significant deterioration and 
worsening of claimant's condition.

[¶8]      It is true that 
claimant and his doctor discussed surgery before the work-related injury, 
however notes from claimant's doctor indicate that discussion took place over a 
two and a half year period before the last injury. As pointed out by the hearing 
examiner in Finding No. 5, it was the "work effort [that] brought the need for 
surgery to a head and forced the surgery to be done at this time." Further, 
testimony indicated that the pain levels experienced by claimant increased after 
the injury; and, when taken as a whole, the evidence supports the hearing 
examiner's conclusions that the work efforts on behalf of the employer 
contributed to a material degree to the precipitation, aggravation or 
acceleration of his preexisting condition to the point that surgery could no 
longer be avoided.

Lack of specificity in 
findings

[¶9]      Appellants assert 
the findings of the hearing examiner represent only conclusory statements with 
no specific findings of basic fact to support them. The findings include a 
comparison of the MRI reports showing a worsening of claimant's condition; the 
treating physician's statement attributing 50 percent of his condition primarily 
to the work-related injury; the worsening of pain experienced by claimant; and 
the fact that while claimant may have needed surgery for some time, it was this 
injury which required that it be done immediately.

The agency is 
charged with determining "the ultimate weight to be given that evidence." In 
addition, the agency is charged with determining the credibility of the 
witnesses. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, this 
court "cannot substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency, but [this court 
is] required to uphold its findings upon appeal."

Weidner v. Life Care Centers of 
America, 893 P.2d 706, 710 (Wyo. 
1995) (quoting Beddow v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 718 P.2d 12, 14 (Wyo. 
1986)).

CONCLUSION

[¶10]   The findings of the hearing 
examiner include the basic facts which reflect the substantial evidence upon 
which the conclusions are based.

HARTMAN, J., filed a dissenting 
opinion.

HARTMAN, District Judge, dissenting.

[¶11]   I respectfully 
dissent.

[¶12]   Here it is undisputed that 
Respondent suffered from a preexisting back injury at commencement of employment 
with the Laramie County School District. Respondent's back condition required 
two previous surgeries, and a third procedure was recommended prior to his 
employment with the school district. Therefore, it is quite clear that the only 
basis upon which the Hearing Examiner could find in favor of the Respondent was 
if Respondent was able to demonstrate "a material aggravation of a preexisting 
injury." This Court has said:

Preexisting disease 
or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim under the "arising out 
of employment" requirement if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or 
combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the death or disability for 
which compensation is sought.

Hepp v. State ex rel. Workers' 
Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's 
Compensation, § 12.21 (1996)); see also Jim's Water Serv. v. Eayrs, 
590 P.2d 1346, 1349 (Wyo. 1979). It was incumbent upon the claimant to establish 
every essential element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Goddard, 914 P.2d 1233, 1236 (Wyo. 1996).

[¶13]   The majority opine, conjointly with 
the Hearing Examiner in his Finding No. 5, that "the work effort [by Respondent] 
brought the need for surgery to a head." It is on this point that I differ with 
the majority. The great weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Respondent 
underwent his first back surgery in 1987 and a second in January of 1991. 
Subsequent to the second surgery, the follow-up notes of the treating physician 
are illuminating.

[¶14]   In November of 1991, the treating 
physician's notes indicate that Respondent has "more soreness in his back and 
some down his left leg." The April 1992 notes reveal: "I just don't see any 
other way to make him [Respondent] better other than fusing." Most significant 
are the notes of Dr. Wirt two weeks before the claimed injury which state: "He 
[Respondent] has been having a two to three week history of increased pain down 
his right leg." Additionally, there is the evidence of a high number of refills 
on his prescription for pain medication from January 1991 to October 1994. All 
this tends to show that the October 1994 injury was not work related. 

[¶15]   Clearly the Hearing Examiner's 
Finding No. 5 is not supported by substantial evidence, and the Respondent 
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury occurring on 
October 31, 1994, was a "material aggravation" of his preexisting injury. I 
would reverse.