Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM OF RAUL BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, AN EMPLOYEE OF SUNDOWN, INC.: RAUL BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF PERU V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF RAUL BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, AN EMPLOYEE OF SUNDOWN, INC.: RAUL BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF PERU V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2010 WY 67231 P.3d 902Case Number: S-09-0226Decided: 05/25/2010
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF RAUL BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, 
AN EMPLOYEE OF SUNDOWN, INC.:

 
 
RAUL 
BEJARANO GOMEZ, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF 
PERU,

 
 
Appellant

(Claimant),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Washakie County

The 
Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Bill 
G. Hibbler of Bill G. Hibbler, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristen J. 
Hanna, Senior Assistant Attorney General. 

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a district court order affirming a determination by the Office of 
Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying workers' compensation benefits to the 
family of Raul Bejarano Gomez (Gomez) on the ground that Gomez's death was not 
compensable under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (LexisNexis 2009).  We will affirm the district court and 
the OAH because neither committed an error of law in finding that Gomez's death 
did not arise out of his employment, but occurred under circumstances fitting 
the exception to "injury" found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(H) for 
injuries incurred while engaged in recreational or social 
events.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Whether the 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order entered by the OAH, holding that 
Gomez's death was not an injury as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi), is contrary to law?

 
 
WYO. 
STAT. ANN. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(H)

 
 

(a)   As used in this act:

 
 
        . . . 
.

 
 

(xi)    "Injury" means 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.  "Injury" 
does not include:

 
 
        . . . 
. 

 
 

(H)    Any 
injury sustained while engaged in recreational or social events under 
circumstances where an employee was under no duty to attend and where the injury 
did not result from the performance of tasks related to the employee's normal 
job duties or as specifically instructed to be performed by the employer; . . . 
.

 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The material 
facts are not in dispute.  Gomez was 
employed by Sundown, Inc. as a sheepherder on the Gooseberry Creek Ranch in 
Washakie County, Wyoming.  Gomez's 
brother-in-law, Sergio Ambrosio-Rojas (Ambrosio-Rojas), was similarly 
employed.  Both men were Peruvian 
nationals working legally in the United States under a Sheepherder Contract 
through a government program.  Their 
primary duty was the "care and tending of sheep while on the range or pasture, 
for which the worker is on call 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, Sundays and 
holidays included."  Sheepherders 
did not actually work 24 hours each day, but were on call, especially during 
lambing season, and for things such as predator control.  Gomez and Ambrosio-Rojas shared a 
residence that was provided for them on the ranch.  Gomez's death occurred during lambing 
season, at a time when the sheep under his care were in a pasture about a mile 
and a half from the residence.

 
 
[¶4]      On April 22, 
2007, Gomez and Ambrosio-Rojas, without permission, took a ranch vehicle off the 
ranch to help neighbors brand calves, after which they each consumed 
approximately three cans of beer.  At about 6:00 p.m., Ambrosio-Rojas drove 
the two men into Worland, a nearby town, where they purchased a 30-pack case of 
beer.  The two men began drinking on 
the way back to their residence, and they continued to drink throughout the 
night.  Sometime after 10:00 p.m., 
they began to argue in the living room of their residence over the amount of 
money that Ambrosio-Rojas was sending back to Peru for his family.  The argument escalated into a fight, 
with the men punching and kicking each other.  Eventually, Ambrosio-Rojas grabbed the 
rifle that was provided to them for predator control and shot Gomez in the back, 
killing him instantly.

 
 
[¶5]      On April 27, 
2007, the Consul General of Peru in Denver filed a report of injury with the 
Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division).  On May 31, 2007, the Division denied 
benefits on the ground that the injury was caused by Gomez's intoxication, and 
that the incident did not meet the definition of injury.  The Consul General responded with a 
request for a contested case hearing, and the matter then was assigned to the 
OAH.  A hearing was held on January 
18, 2008. 

 
 
[¶6]      On February 18, 
2008, the OAH issued its very comprehensive and well-reasoned Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law and Order, in which it upheld the Division's final 
determination denying benefits.  After thoroughly analyzing all of the 
Division's proffered theories of non-compensability, and Gomez's 
counter-arguments, the Hearing Examiner finally cited Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(H) and rested his affirmance of the Division upon the 
conclusion that

 
 
at 
the time of his injury Gomez was engaged in a recreational or social event which 
he was under no duty to participate in, and his injury was not the result of the 
performance of a task related to his normal job duties or as specifically 
instructed to be performed by his employer.

 
 
In 
addition, the Hearing Examiner noted that a claimant seeking worker's 
compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of 
his claim, that a compensable injury must "arise out of and in the course of 
employment," and that such was not the case here, where the claimant "was 
engaged in activities which had nothing to do with his normal job duties nor was 
he doing anything his employer instructed [him] to do."

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶7]      Our standard for 
reviewing the decision of an administrative agency can be stated quite simply 
for the purposes of this case:  (1) 
review is limited  by the language 
of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2009); (2) we give no special 
deference to the decision of the district court, but treat the case as if it 
came directly from the agency; and (3) we review conclusions of law de novo.  See Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶¶ 8-26, 188 P.3d 554, 557-62 (Wyo. 
2008).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶8]      
In 
reaching its conclusion that Gomez's death was not compensable, the OAH relied 
upon the following language from Finley 
v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2006 WY 46, ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 185, 188 
(Wyo. 2006):

 
 
            
An employee-claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden to 
prove all the statutory elements which comprise a compensable injury by a 
preponderance of the evidence.  This 
includes establishing the cause of the condition for which compensation is 
claimed and proving that the injury arose out of and in the course of 
employment.

 
 
An 
injury "aris[es] out of" the employment when a causal connection exists between 
the injury and the conditions under which the work is required to be 
performed.  Under these guidelines, 
"if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work 
and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole 
situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the 
employment, then it arises out of' the employment."  An injury is not compensable if it 
cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing cause and if it 
comes from a hazard that the employee would have been equally exposed to outside 
of the employment.

 
 
(Internal 
citations omitted.)  In applying 
these principles of law to the facts of this case, the OAH reached several 
conclusions, including the following, which are most 
pertinent:

 
 
            
25.  Gomez's counsel argues 
that Gomez was killed while occupying the premises where he was required to be 
and indeed while doing what was required of him by his employer, even though at 
the time of his death he was not actively tending the sheep.  However, the Office has no difficulty in 
concluding, as argued by the Division, that at the time of his injury Gomez was 
engaged in a recreational or social event which he was under no duty to 
participate in, and his injury was not the result of the performance of a task 
related to his normal job duties or as specifically instructed to be performed 
by his employer. As noted above, injuries sustained in these circumstances is 
[sic] not a compensable injury.  
W.S. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(H).  
(The typical scenario implicating this statute is one where there is an 
injury which occurs off-premises, such as at a park or recreational area, during 
a picnic or party, but the statute does not contain any such limiting language, 
and certainly the underlying policy of the statute is applicable 
here.)

 
 
            
. . . .

 
 
            
27.  To summarize, Gomez was, 
at least in a general sense, where he was supposed to be at the time of his 
death, namely, somewhere on the ranch.  
Therefore there was [a] rebuttable presumption under the [p]remises rule 
that his injury was work related.[1]  However, at the time of his injury he 
was engaged in activities which had nothing to do with his normal job duties nor 
was he doing anything his employer instructed [him] to do.  He was engaged in what certainly could 
be characterized as a social activity, or at the very least a break from his 
work activities.  The combat with 
his co-employee had nothing to do with his work, either, but was obviously due 
to a personal animosity between the parties.  Therefore, the Office concludes that his 
injury did not "arise out of" his employment, as required by the Act, and that 
benefits should not be awarded.

 
 
[¶9]      In affirming the 
OAH, the district court not only agreed with this legal analysis, but also 
determined that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the 
Hearing Examiner's findings.  While 
we concur in this latter conclusion, the issue has been presented to us solely 
as a question of law, largely because the material facts are not disputed, and 
we have limited our review to that question.  In prior cases denying compensation 
through application of the recreational or social activity exception to the 
definition of injury, we have found, as a matter of fact, that the employer did 
not require the employee to participate in the particular activity.  See Wright v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety & Comp. Div., 2007 WY 
101, ¶ 12, 160 P.3d 1129, 
1132 (Wyo. 2007) (Head Start worker injured while ice skating); Hepp v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
& Comp. Div., 977 P.2d 682, 686 (Wyo. 1999) (radio station sales representative injured while 
horseback riding); DeWall v. State ex 
rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 960 P.2d 502, 504 (Wyo. 1998) (ski 
instructor injured skiing between lessons); and Cronk v. City of Cody, 897 P.2d 476, 478 (Wyo. 1995) 
(police officer injured while working out in a gym).  That analysis would also apply to the 
facts of this case.

 
 
[¶10]   This is not a close case.  To find Gomez's death compensable under 
these circumstances would require adoption of what would resemble a strict 
liability standard for cases where an employee is on call and on the employer's 
premises.  That is not the law in 
Wyoming, where compensability requires some "nexus" between the work and the 
injury, as the citation above to Finley illustrates.  See supra ¶ 8.  
See also Huntington v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2007 
WY 124, ¶ 10, 163 P.3d 839, 842 
(Wyo. 2007) (there must be a causal connection between the injury and some 
condition, activity, environment or requirement of the 
employment).

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶11]   The OAH did not err as a matter of 
law in determining that Gomez's death was not compensable because it did not 
arise out of his employment, but arose while he was engaged in recreational or 
social events that he was not required to attend, and where his death did not 
result from the performance of any task related to his job 
duties.

 
 
[¶12]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Wyoming 
has adopted a rebuttable presumption in workers' compensation cases that, under 
certain circumstances, injuries that occur on the work premises are 
compensable.  Archuleta v. Carbon County Sch. Dist. No. 
1, 787 P.2d 91, 92-93 (Wyo. 
1990); State ex rel. Workers' Comp. Div. 
v. Miller, 787 P.2d 89, 90 
(Wyo. 1990).  We agree with the 
Hearing Examiner that this presumption was rebutted in the instant 
case.