Title: Fischer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Fischer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1987 WY 34734 P.2d 558Case Number: 86-263Decided: 03/27/1987Supreme Court of Wyoming
Rick 
FISCHER, Appellant (Employee/Claimant)

 
 
v.

 
 
The 
STATE of Wyoming, ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector/Defendant), Holiday Inn, 
(Employer/Defendant)

 
 
John S. 
Wolfe of Banks, Johnson, Wolfe & Hallock, for 
Appellant.

 
 
A. G. 
McClintock, Attorney General; Josephine T. Porter, Assistant Attorney General; 
Patrick J. Crank, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee. 

 
 
Before 
Brown, C.J., and Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit, and Macy, JJ. 

 
 
BROWN, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
the district court's denial of an award of permanent partial disability benefits 
and request for further vocational evaluation based on the district court's 
conclusion that appellant-employee failed to carry his burden of proving that he 
had sustained any permanent partial disability or that further vocational 
evaluation was a necessity.

 
 
[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

 
 
[¶3.]     On January 5, 1986, 
appellant Rick Fischer, a 32-year old maintenance man, slipped and fell on a wet 
floor while at work, injuring his back. At the time he was employed by the 
Holiday Inn located in Gillette, Wyoming. Upon seeking medical treatment, 
appellant was diagnosed by Dr. Gerald Baker as suffering from an acute 
musculoligamentous strain of the lumbar spine. Thereafter, he participated in an 
outpatient physical therapy program under the care of Dr. Patrick McDonald. 
Appellant was awarded temporary total benefits and medical 
costs.

 
 
[¶4.]     On July 8, 1986, 
appellant filed a motion for examination and award of permanent partial 
disability payments. That motion alleged that appellant had suffered a 
vocational impairment as a result of the injury sustained, and requested an 
examination by appropriate vocational evaluators to determine the impact of his 
condition upon his ability to perform the work for which he was experienced and 
trained. The state objected to such an award or 
evaluation.

 
 
[¶5.]     At trial, the district 
court after hearing evidence, concluded that appellant was not entitled to 
receive any permanent partial disability award and further, that appellant was 
not entitled to a vocational evaluation. This appeal is from that 
order.

 
 
[¶6.]     Appellant states the 
relevant issues to be determined on appeal by this court as 
follows:

 
 
"1. 
Whether an injured employee, who has suffered an injury as defined in Wyoming 
Statutes Section 27-12-102(a)(xii), and has been advised by his physician to 
discontinue performing work for which he was reasonably suited by experience or 
training prior to his injury, is entitled to permanent partial disability 
benefits as provided for in Wyoming Statutes Section 27-12-403(a) and/or (h) 
when his physician has rendered an opinion that he has a 0% permanent physical 
impairment and loss of physical function to lower extremity using the manual for 
orthopedic surgeons in evaluating permanent physical 
impairment.

"2. 
Whether the employee-claimant is entitled to permanent partial disability 
benefits pursuant to Wyoming Statutes Section 27-12-403(a) and/or (h) based upon 
the physical impairment and impairment to earning capacity as a result of his 
injury.

"3. Did 
the district court err in its decision and finding that the employee failed to 
prove a permanent impairment and permanent disability as provided for in Wyoming 
Statute Section 27-12-403."

 
 
Appellee 
restates the issues in a single argumentatively fashioned issue, but appears to 
agree with appellant's statement of the issues.

 
 
[¶7.]     For disposition of this 
case we rephrase the issue on appeal as whether or not the trial court erred or 
abused its discretion when it determined that appellant be denied an award of 
permanent partial disability pursuant to § 27-12-403, W.S.1977 (June 1983 
Replacement), and whether he was entitled to a vocational 
evaluation.

 
 
[¶8.]     As has been stated 
numerous times our standard of review is well established. On appeal we accept 
the evidence of the prevailing party as true, leaving out of consideration the 
evidence presented by the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith, giving every 
favorable inference which may fairly and reasonably be drawn from the prevailing 
party's evidence. Matter of Arcoren, Wyo., 730 P.2d 128 (1986); Matter of Abas, 
Wyo., 701 P.2d 1153 (1985); Stockton v. Sowerwine, Wyo., 
690 P.2d 1202 (1984).

 
 
"* * * * 
A trial court's findings are presumed correct and such will not be disturbed 
unless they are inconsistent with the evidence, clearly erroneous or contrary to 
the great weight of the evidence. Palmeno v. 
Cashen, Wyo., 
627 P.2d 163 (1981)." Matter of 
Arcoren, supra, at 
129.

"* * * * 
When there is substantial evidence to support the facts found by the court, its 
order will not be disturbed. Pacific Power and 
Light v. Parsons, Wyo., 692 P.2d 226 
(1984). * * * *" Worker's Compensation 
Claim of Cannon v. FMC Corporation, 
Wyo., 718 P.2d 879, 882 (1986).

 
 
Further 
we note that:

 
 
"* * * * 
The burden rests upon the claimant in a worker's compensation case to establish 
every essential element of his claim through a preponderance of the evidence. 
McCarty v. Bear Creek Uranium Company, [Wyo., 694 P.2d 93 (1985)]; and Alco of Wyoming v. Baker, 
Wyo., 651 P.2d 266 (1982). It is incumbent upon the claimant to show the extent of his 
injury, the disability or the loss of earning power, Jennings v. C. M. & W. Drilling 
Company, 77 Wyo. 69, 307 P.2d 122 
(1957), and that he is entitled to the award he seeks. Matter of Hasser, Wyo., 
647 P.2d 66 (1982)." Matter of 
Arcoren, supra at 
130.

 
 
[¶9.]     In this case we are 
concerned with one statute, § 27-12-403, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement). It 
provides in applicable part:

 
 
"(a) 
Permanent partial disability means the loss or permanent impairment of a limb or 
sense, or any other injury known to surgery or medicine to constitute permanent 
impairment of a bodily function. . . .

"(h) For 
any other injury known to surgery or medicine to constitute permanent partial 
disability, the employee shall receive compensation in the amount proportional 
to the extent of permanent partial disability based as near as may be upon the 
foregoing schedule. 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."

 
 
Therefore, 
as clearly stated by the statute, appellant must show he has sustained some 
permanent partial disability in order to collect the appropriate 
benefits.

 
 
[¶10.]  Like the trial court, we are dissatisfied 
with the nature of the proof relating to permanent partial disability. The only 
testimony concerning disability was that related by appellant himself who stated 
he had limitations of function and pain. However, while Dr. McDonald assigned 
lifting restrictions for appellant based on his complaints made during 
treatment, he gave appellant a physical impairment rating of zero. Further, 
other evidence presented by appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim 
of permanent partial disability.

 
 
[¶11.]  Succinctly stated, appellant was 
unsuccessful in bringing himself within the parameters of the pertinent statute. 
We find the weight of the evidence does not support a determination of any 
permanent partial disability. Given circumstances where an attending physician 
states that the claimant has suffered no loss of function of body or limb in 
terms of physical impairment, and where the claimant alleges pain which cannot 
be substantiated, we cannot determine that the trial court erred. Sufficient 
evidence exists in support of the trial court's factual 
determination.

 
 
"The 
trial court is in a better position to judge the demeanor, truth and veracity of 
the witnesses. * * * * It is within the prerogative of the trier of fact to 
decide what evidence is most dependable. Cederburg 
v. Carter, Wyo., 448 P.2d 608 (1968). This we will 
not disturb on appeal." State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division v. Colvin, Wyo., 
681 P.2d 269, 271 (1984).

"'Questions 
regarding the extent and duration of a claimant's disability are questions of 
fact to be determined by the trial court and shall be reviewed as such. * * * * 
' Matter of Abas, 701 P.2d 1153, 1156 (1985)." Worker's Compensation Claim of Cannon v. FMC 
Corporation, supra, at 
882.

 
 
[¶12.]  Additionally, appellant claims that he 
was improperly denied the right to receive a vocational evaluation. Given the 
fact that a showing of physical impairment is a prerequisite to an award for 
permanent partial disability, we find that any vocational evaluation to 
determine the proportions of such loss fruitless and vacuous. Therefore, the 
trial court was correct in denying any vocational 
evaluation.

 
 
[¶13.]  Affirmed.