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

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Tysver v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1995 WY 76896 P.2d 116Case Number: 94-258Decided: 05/30/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Ronald 
S. TYSVER, Appellant (Petitioner, Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE OF WYOMING, EX REL., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent, 
Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Natrona County, Harry E. Leimback, 
J.

Donald L. Painter, Casper, 
for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., 
John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Gerald W. Laska, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., 
Cheyenne, and Drew A. Perkins, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Casper, for appellee.

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

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      We review an 
order of the district court affirming a hearing examiner's denial of a worker's 
compensation claim for benefits. We affirm.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant, Ronald 
S. Tysver (Tysver), states this issue:

1. Whether Appellant's chelation treatments are 
"experimental" as that phrase appears in § 27-14-102(a)(xii) W.S. 
1977.

[¶3]      Appellee, Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Division (Division), provides this summary of the 
issues:

1.         
Whether substantial evidence exists to support the hearing examiner's 
denial of employee-claimant's claim for workers' compensation 
benefits?

2.         Is 
the hearing examiner's decision in accordance with law?

II. 
FACTS

[¶4]      On August 23, 
1989, while employed for Petro Engineering and Construction, Inc., Tysver was 
exposed to certain chemical toxins which may have included toluene, benzene, 
tylene and methyl-ethyl lead. Some medical expenses were paid in connection with 
that exposure; however, by order entered on February 2, 1993, Tysver's claims 
for temporary total disability were denied. The hearing examiner found that 
Tysver had no continuing disability and that the 1989 exposure to chemical 
toxins did not play a significant role in his symptomology. The hearing examiner 
also found that Tysver's symptoms, which included dementia, depression, general 
frustration, weight loss, and loss of cognitive abilities including loss of 
comprehension, memory and concentration, were unrelated to the alleged 
industrial accident and, for the most part, were symptoms present in Tysver's 
personal composition before exposure to chemical toxins. Another result of that 
hearing was that the Division stipulated Tysver could change physicians and that 
it would not object to charges submitted by a new physician on the basis of lack 
of referral or lack of request for a change of doctor. The stipulation also 
provided that the Division "retains the right to object to the reasonableness or 
necessity of any services rendered by that medical 
practitioner."

[¶5]      Tysver filed a 
petition in the district court seeking review of the Order Denying Benefits of 
February 2, 1993. The petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order of the district court dismissing 
the petition for review was not further appealed.

[¶6]      The physician to 
whom Tysver was referred performed a series of chelation treatments with the 
goal of removing suspected (but otherwise undetectable) chemical toxins from his 
body tissues and, hence, reducing the severity of the symptoms described above. 
The physician testified that the treatments did have a positive effect on 
Tysver's overall condition and that the treatments were not experimental. Tysver 
sought payment for the chelation treatments and a hearing was held to determine 
if they were compensable. The hearing examiner adopted by reference the findings 
contained in the Order Denying Benefits of February 2, 1993, determined that the 
treatments were experimental and, thus, not compensable under the terms of Wyo. 
Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(xii) (Cum.Supp. 1994).1 In addition, based upon the Order 
Denying Benefits of February 2, 1993, the hearing examiner determined that the 
chelation treatments were not treatments for a condition resulting from an 
injury arising out of Tysver's employment. Tysver filed a petition for review in 
the district court and the district court affirmed the hearing examiner's 
determination.

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶7]      We hold that the 
question of whether the "injuries" complained of by Tysver arose out of his 
employment was fully adjudicated by the Order Denying Benefits of February 2, 
1993 and is res judicata. Matter of Swasso, 751 P.2d 887, 890-91 (Wyo. 1988). 
The circumstances of this case, including the stipulation that Tysver could be 
referred to a new physician, did not evoke application of our precedents 
regarding "mistake." See Matter of Warehime, 806 P.2d 292, 295-96 (Wyo. 1991). 
Because we hold the question of whether Tysver's injuries arose out of his 
employment is res judicata, we will not address the issue of whether the 
chelation treatments were "experimental."2

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶8]      The order of the 
district court affirming the hearing examiner's determination denying Tysver's 
claim for worker's compensation benefits is affirmed in all 
respects.

FOOTNOTE

1 That section of the Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Act has been amended several times since the date of injury, but 
not as to the wording pertinent to this appeal, i.e.: "`Medical and hospital 
care' does not include any * * * experimental medical or surgical procedure * * 
*." 1986 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 3, § 3 (Special Session, June 23, 
1986).

2 We do note that the only relevant and 
competent evidence in the record on the question of whether the treatments were 
experimental was a physician's testimony that they were not experimental.