Title: ROBERTS v. R&S WELL SERVICE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ROBERTS v. R&S WELL SERVICE2001 WY 11735 P.3d 1219Case Number: 00-304Decided: 12/06/2001

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2001

 

                                                                                                
  

 

IN THE 
MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF MARK ROBERTS,

AN 
EMPLOYEE OF R&S WELL SERVICE:

 

MARK 
ROBERTS, 

Appellant(Employee-Claimant),

 

v.

 

R&S 
WELL SERVICE, 

Appellee(Employer-Objector),

and

 

STATE OF 
WYOMING, ex rel.,

WYOMING 
WORKERS' SAFETY

AND 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, 

Appellee(Objector-Defendant).

 

W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Big Horn 
County

The 
Honorable Hunter Patrick, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

            
G. Mark Garrison of Garrison & Bronnenberg, P.C., Cody, 
Wyoming.

  

Representing 
Appellee State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division: 

Gay 
Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald 
W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Assistant 
Attorney General. 

Representing 
Appellee R&S Well Service: 

            
Brigita S. Krisjansons of Messenger & Jurovich, of Thermopolis, 
Wyoming.

  

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

  
            
HILL, Justice.

 [¶1]      Mark Roberts 
(Roberts) appeals from a decision denying him worker's compensation benefits for 
a shoulder injury on the grounds that he had failed to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the injury was work-related.  We affirm.

 

[¶2]      Roberts' brief 
contains the following statement of the issue:

Whether 
the hearing examiner's decision denying employee/claimant's worker's 
compensation claim on the basis that the employee/claimant failed to satisfy his 
burden of proving that his injury occurred in the course of his employment was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 
with the law.

 

The 
employer, R & S Well Service, offers a statement of the issue in question 
format:

Was there substantial evidence to 
support the hearing examiner's decision that Mark Robert's [sic] failed 
to meet his burden of proving that he sustained his injury during the course of 
his employment with R & S Well Service, thereby making him ineligible for 
worker's compensation benefits?

 

The 
Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) also offers a 
brief statement of the issue:

 

Did the Hearing Examiner correctly 
determine that Appellant failed to prove that his shoulder injury occurred in 
the course of his employment?

 

[¶3]      R & S Well 
Service employed Roberts as a rig hand, a job that required him to latch pipe 
approximately 60 feet high in a derrick.  
On September 15, 1999, Roberts filed a claim for worker's compensation 
alleging that an injury occurred to his shoulder during the course of his 
employment on September 14, 1999.  A 
contested case hearing on Roberts' claim was held on June 26, 2000.  According to Roberts, he was up in the 
derrick latching pipe when a piece he was holding pulled away causing an injury 
to his shoulder.  Initially, Roberts 
thought he had only pulled or strained a muscle, so he completed his shift 
despite numbness in his fingertips.  
Roberts managed to climb down the derrick but only was able to change his 
boots before leaving the well site.

 

[¶4]      The next morning, 
Roberts' shoulder was swollen and bruised.  
He went to the emergency room and was ultimately diagnosed with "an 
external rotation type of injury which would tend to bring the ball anteriorly 
or forward relative to the socket."  
In other words, Roberts had suffered a dislocated shoulder.  Roberts had a one-inch dislocation of 
the shoulder, and he would ultimately need surgery.

 

[¶5]      Steven Shay, the 
safety manager for R & S Well Service, testified that it was his job to 
process workers' compensation claims.  
Shay indicated that he was suspicious of the legitimacy of Roberts' claim 
because on the day of the alleged incident, Roberts had been complaining that he 
did not think he could handle the job.  
Later, as part of his investigation into the injury, Shay interviewed 
Roberts' girlfriend, Tara.1  She indicated that Roberts often lied to 
her, and she did not know whether he was telling the truth or not.  When confronted with these statements at 
the hearing, Tara recanted insisting that the reason she made those statements 
to Shay was because she was angry with Roberts.  Her testimony at the hearing was 
otherwise consistent with Roberts', i.e., that he had complained of 
shoulder pain from an injury sustained while handling pipe at work.  Tara also indicated that she had 
observed some bruising on Roberts' shoulder.

 

[¶6]      Two other 
witnesses testified at the hearing.  
Calvin Werbelow, Roberts' supervisor, testified that no mention was made 
of a shoulder injury on the date of the alleged incident.  At the time, Roberts had stated that he 
did not feel like he could "make it" at this job.  Werbelow also testified that earlier on 
that day, Roberts had complained of a thumb injury but that he continued to 
work.  A co-worker, Del Friendly, 
testified that Roberts had shown him the thumb injury, but similarly had made no 
mention of any shoulder injury.  
According to Friendly, Roberts continued to work and exhibited no 
difficulties when climbing down the 60-foot ladder at the end of the day.  Contrary to Roberts' testimony that he 
had only changed his boots, Friendly asserted that Roberts had changed all of 
his clothes without any evident difficulty.  Friendly, in fact, insisted that he 
would not have allowed Roberts to ride back to town in the pickup if Roberts had 
not changed his dirty clothes.  
Friendly also stated that Roberts did not show any signs of discomfort on 
the ride back to town, which traversed a rough dirt road.

 

[¶7]      Medical testimony 
was presented through the deposition of Dr. Jimmie G. Biles.  Dr. Biles testified that Roberts had 
suffered from a separated shoulder.  
However, when he saw Roberts on September 17, 1999, three days after the 
alleged incident, no bruising was evident in the shoulder area.  Given the history presented by Roberts, 
Dr. Biles opined that the injury could have occurred as Roberts claimed.  However, Dr. Biles testified that he did 
not think Roberts could have climbed down the ladder if his shoulder was one 
inch out of its socket.  Dr. Biles 
opined that Roberts would have known whether he had simply strained or torn a 
muscle rather than separated his shoulder because of the difference in pain 
levels associated with the respective injuries.

 

[¶8]      The hearing 
examiner concluded that Roberts had failed to show, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that his shoulder injury was a work-related injury and denied 
benefits.  The basis for the 
decision was the hearing examiner's conclusion that Roberts and his witness, 
Tara, lacked credibility in comparison to the witnesses for the employer and the 
Division.  The hearing examiner 
decided that he could not "conclude that the causative mechanism of [Roberts'] 
shoulder condition was as [Roberts] testified."

 

[¶9]      Roberts appealed 
the denial of benefits to the district court, which has certified the matter to 
this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

[¶10]   We have a well-established standard 
for reviewing denials of a claim for benefits when a hearing examiner concludes 
that a claimant has failed to meet the burden of establishing that the injury 
was work-related:

 

A 
claimant requesting worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all 
essential elements of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Pederson v. 
State, ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo. 1997); 
Goddard v. Colonel Bozeman's Restaurant, 914 P.2d 1233, 1236 (Wyo. 1996). 
To prove by a preponderance of the evidence, the claimant must bring forth 
"proof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested 
fact is more probable than its non-existence." Thornberg v. State ex rel. 
Workers' Compensation Div., 913 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting 
Scherling v. Kilgore, 599 P.2d 1352, 1359 (Wyo. 
1979)).

 

When a 
hearing examiner concludes that a claimant has failed to meet his or her burden 
of proof, that conclusion is reversed only if it is found to be arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with law. 
Pederson, 939 P.2d  at 742; City of Casper v. Utech, 895 P.2d 449, 
452 (Wyo. 1995); Bohren v. State, ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 883 P.2d 355, 357-58 (Wyo. 1994).  Under 
the arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion standard, we are charged with 
examining the entire record. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 1999); 
Utech, 895 P.2d  at 452.  In 
our examination and review of a hearing examiner's determination, we defer to 
the hearing examiner's findings of fact. Pederson, 939 P.2d  at 742; 
[Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 (Wyo. 1994).] 
We will examine conflicting and contradictory evidence to see if the hearing 
examiner reasonably could have made its findings based on all the evidence 
before it. Pederson, 939 P.2d  at 742, and cases therein cited. The 
findings of fact may include determinations of witness credibility, as the 
hearing examiner is charged with determining the credibility of the 
witnesses.  Pederson, 939 P.2d  at 742; Utech, 895 P.2d  at 451, and cases therein cited. In our 
review, we will not overturn the hearing examiner's determinations regarding 
witness credibility unless they are clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight 
of the evidence. Nellis v. Dep't of Transp., 932 P.2d 741, 743 (Wyo. 
1997); Pederson, 939 P.2d  at 742; Robles, 882 P.2d  at 
875.

 

Carrillo 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division, 987 P.2d 690, 692-93 (Wyo. 1999).

 

[¶11]   The burden was on Roberts to prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose out of and in the 
course of his employment.  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (LexisNexis 2001).  Roberts argues that he did, in fact, 
prove that his injury was work-related.  
According to Roberts, the hearing examiner's decision was flawed because 
he ignored relevant evidence in support of Roberts' claim and focused, instead, 
on determining witness credibility using peripheral and irrelevant 
evidence.  In effect, Roberts' 
argument is that the hearing examiner used the determination on credibility to 
bootstrap a decision that Roberts had failed to meet his burden of 
proof.

 

[¶12]   There is no question that Roberts 
suffered an injury to his shoulder.  
The only issue before the hearing examiner was whether that injury arose 
out his employment.  First, Roberts 
insists that the hearing examiner failed to take into account his testimony 
about how the injury occurred -- testimony that was not contradicted and had 
remained consistent throughout the proceedings.  Next, he stresses Dr. Biles' testimony 
that Roberts' injury was consistent with his account of how it happened.  Roberts argues that this was sufficient 
to meet his burden of proof.  
Roberts claims that, instead of addressing the evidence relevant to 
whether the injury occurred during the course of employment, the hearing 
examiner based his decision on witness credibility using evidence that was not 
relevant to the sole question at issue.  
There was no reason, Roberts insists, for the hearing examiner to find 
him not credible because his account of the injury was reasonable and had 
remained consistent throughout the proceedings.  As for Tara's testimony, Roberts 
acknowledges that she made inconsistent statements.  However, he argues that her credibility 
should not have been held against him because it placed an undue burden on him 
to disprove her earlier statement.  
At most, Roberts says the hearing examiner should have just disregarded 
her testimony.  Finally, Roberts 
claims that the hearing examiner gave undue weight to Steven Shay's testimony. 
Roberts argues that Shay's testimony was not very credible because he gave 
conflicting reasons behind his motivation for investigating Roberts' claim.  Accordingly, Roberts asserts that the 
hearing examiner's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 
and not otherwise in accordance with law.

 

[¶13]   Roberts is asking this Court to do 
exactly what it will not do when reviewing an agency decision: reweigh the 
evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.  First, our review of the record has left 
us with the firm conviction that the hearing examiner's determinations on 
witness credibility were not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the 
evidence.  The hearing examiner 
clearly believed that the testimony of Roberts' girlfriend was not 
credible.  Initially, she told the 
employer's safety officer that Roberts often lied and that she did not know 
whether he was telling the truth or not.  
Then, at the hearing, she backed Roberts' version of the events and 
insisted that she had made the earlier statements only because she was angry 
with Roberts.  The hearing examiner 
was well within the bounds of reason when he discounted the girlfriend's hearing 
testimony.  If Roberts had concerns 
about her testimony reflecting negatively on his case, then perhaps he should 
have reconsidered his decision to call her as a witness.  Roberts' attack on the credibility of 
the employer's witness, Steven Shay, is equally unavailing.  Even if we were to entirely discount his 
testimony, it would not affect our decision to affirm the hearing examiner's 
decision.  Everything about which 
Shay testified was confirmed by the other witnesses for the employer and the 
Division or, in the case of the girlfriend's statements, admitted by her.  Since Shay's testimony was consistent 
with the testimony offered by other witnesses, we could not conclude that the 
hearing examiner was wrong to find his testimony credible.

 

[¶14]   As noted above, we defer to the 
hearing examiner's findings of fact and review conflicting and contradictory 
evidence to see if the hearing examiner could have reasonably concluded as he 
did, based upon all the evidence before him.  Carrillo, 987 P.2d  at 693.  In this case, the hearing examiner 
concluded that Roberts' actions on the day that the alleged injury occurred were 
inconsistent with his account of the incident.  Specifically, the hearing examiner noted 
that Roberts had questioned his ability to do the job and had complained about a 
thumb injury earlier that day.  Yet, 
when Roberts' shoulder was allegedly injured while up in the derrick, Roberts 
told no one about it despite the severe pain that is associated with that type 
of injury.  Furthermore, Roberts 
managed to climb down a 60-foot vertical ladder, change his clothes, and then 
ride in a cramped, standard cab pickup on a rough dirt road without mentioning 
or exhibiting any pain or discomfort.  
Similarly, the hearing examiner was free to give little weight to Dr. 
Biles' opinion that Roberts' injury could have arisen at work because that 
opinion was based entirely upon a history provided by Roberts and not upon 
objective, independent evidence.  
Carrillo, 987 P.2d  at 693.  
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the hearing examiner's 
conclusions were reasonable.

 

CONCLUSION

[¶15]   The hearing examiner's decision 
was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 
accordance with law.  Accordingly, 
the decision is affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

  1Tara and Roberts 
were married sometime prior to the contested case hearing in this 
matter.