Title: HURLEY v. PDQ TRANSP., INC.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

HURLEY v. PDQ TRANSP., INC.2000 WY 1176 P.3d 134Case Number: 99-152Decided: 05/10/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
SHELA HURLEY, Appellant 
(Petitioner), v.PDQ TRANSPORT, INC.; and STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellees 
(Respondents).

Appeal from the District 
Court of Laramie County Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
Judge.

Representing 
Appellant: Bert T. Ahlstrom, Jr., 
Cheyenne, Wyoming.Representing Appellee Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division: Gay Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy 
Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Bernard P. 
Haggerty, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

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

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

¶1 Appellant 
Shela Hurley appeals the denial of worker's compensation benefits by the Medical 
Commission following its determination that her 1997 back surgery was not 
causally connected to her 1991 work-related injuries to her neck and 
head.

[¶2] We 
affirm.

[¶3] 
ISSUES

[¶4] The 
statement of the issue on appeal is:

Whether the 
Medical Commission's Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order that 
Appellant did not meet her burden by a preponderance of the evidence was 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with the law, 
unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to the weight of the 
evidence.

FACTS

[¶5] On April 8, 
1991, Hurley jumped up and hit her head on the bucket of a backhoe placed above 
her. She suffered a closed head injury and injured her neck and received 
worker's compensation benefits for chiropractic treatment and disability. Her 
chiropractic treatments included cervical, thoracic, and lumbar adjustments. 
During 1991 and 1992, Hurley was seen by an orthopedic surgeon, a neurologist, 
and a neurosurgeon without complaint of lower back pain. Chiropractic notes from 
July of 1992, however, recorded lumbar muscle spasm and adjustment. On September 
21, 1992, Hurley's impairment evaluation was conducted and no mention of lower 
back pain was made. X-rays of the cervical spine showed no abnormalities, and an 
MRI of the head and neck showed no abnormalities; however, the evaluation 
concluded that the medically documented injury and its associated pain and 
rigidity warranted a 4% permanent partial disability award for the impairment of 
the neck/back.

[¶6] In 1993, an 
additional evaluation by a neurosurgeon for back pain in her left upper 
extremity deemed Hurley eligible for an additional 2.5% permanent partial 
disability award for impairment of her back. Later in 1993, Hurley underwent 
examinations by a neuropsychologist and a physical medicine physician without 
mention of low back pain or lower back injury. In January of 1996, her 
chiropractor, Dr. Sweet, submitted a letter to the Workers' Compensation 
Division (Division) opining that Hurley had L4-5 and L5-S1 biomechanical lesions 
on August 3, 1995, and referring to an MRI dated September, 1996, indicating 
abnormalities in this region.1 Dr. Sweet provided cervical and 
lumbar spine treatments in March, April, and September, 
1996.

[¶7] In June of 
1996, Hurley suffered domestic violence injuries caused by her husband and was 
seen by emergency room physicians. She reported that she had been hit in the jaw 
and chest by his fist and had hit him with her right hand. She complained of 
pain in her chest and her right hand but denied teeth or neck pain. An 
examination indicated "mild tenderness along the lumbar region of the back 
without any spasm." Her hand was wrapped and she was instructed to apply ice to 
her chest and hand. No treatment was provided for her back. On September 30, 
1996, Hurley received physical therapy for a back and neck injury she stated 
that she had received in a domestic violence incident in June of 1996. She 
reported that she began to notice symptoms including low back pain three weeks 
earlier, and her past medical history on that date was reported as 
including:

serious neck and 
closed head injury in 1991, after which time [she] underwent extensive therapy 
between 1991 and 1993. [She] reports that she was released to her work . . . in 
12/93 and was doing well until the domestic violence incident in 
6/96.

[¶8] Hurley was 
seen again on December 23, 1996, for low back pain and again attributed it to 
the domestic violence incident in June of 1996 when she was "knocked into a 
cabinet." She claimed that the pain had been constant since that incident. She 
was given nerve root injections at L4 and L5 during the winter of 1997, and she 
was admitted to the hospital on February 12, 1997, because of increasing low 
back pain and radicular type symptoms. She was diagnosed with lumbar disk 
disease and underwent a partial laminectomy at L4-L5 and filed a claim for 
benefits that was denied. In March of 1997, at the Division's request, 
orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Weiner, reviewed Hurley's medical file and noted that 
the September 30, 1996, MRI was the first documented evidence of low back pain 
and determined that her lower back pain was not caused by her 1991 injuries but 
was primarily due to degenerative disk disease possibly aggravated by the 
domestic violence incident. Dr. Weiner found the chiropractic notes and 
diagnosis unreliable and stated that degeneration at this level of the spine is 
extremely common and most likely not related in any way to the head trauma 
Hurley suffered in 1991.

[¶9] An 
independent medical examiner, Dr. Walker, determined that the cause of the 
herniated disk rupture was the 1991 injury and not the 1996 domestic violence 
injuries. The Medical Commission held a hearing on April 13, 1998, and issued a 
written decision concluding that Hurley failed to show by a preponderance of the 
evidence that her disk disease is related to the 1991 work- related injury and 
denying benefits. The district court affirmed, and this appeal 
followed.

DISCUSSION

Standard of 
Review

[¶10] A claimant 
requesting worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all 
essential elements of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Carrillo v. 
State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 987 P.2d 690, 692 (Wyo. 
1999). 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' Comp. Div., 913 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Scherling v. 
Kilgore, 599 P.2d 1352, 1359 (Wyo. 1979)).

[¶11] When the 
party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, we review 
the case under the arbitrary, capricious, abuse-of-discretion, or otherwise not 
in accordance with law standard. Keck v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and 
Comp. Div., 985 P.2d 430, 432 (Wyo. 1999); City of Casper v. Utech, 895 P.2d 449, 452 (Wyo. 1995).

[¶12] 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 [v. 
State, ex rel. Worker's Comp. Div.], 939 P.2d [740] at 742 [(Wyo. 1997)]; 
[Wyoming Steel & Fab., Inc. v.] Robles, 882 P.2d [873] at 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. 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, 987 P.2d  at 693.

Hurley argues 
that the Medical Commission's conclusion that she failed to prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence a causal relationship ignores Dr. Walker's 
independent medical examination and conclusions. She claims that Dr. Walker's 
evidence satisfied her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and 
the Commission's conclusion is arbitrary and capricious. The issue before the 
Medical Commission was whether her lumbar disk disease was caused by the 1991 
work-related injury. Causal connection is a question of fact. The task of 
determining the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the evidence is 
assigned to the Medical Commission, and its determination will be overturned 
only if it is clearly contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Helm v. 
State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 982 P.2d 1236, 1237 (Wyo. 
1999).

[¶13] In its 
findings of fact, the Commission stated:

Dr. Walker's 
evaluation relies heavily on the history provided by Ms. Hurley and assumptions 
made about the reasons for prior chiropractic low back adjustments. Most of the 
documentation of low back complaints is derived from chiropractic reports. We 
note low back adjustments may be considered routine chiropractic care in some 
instances.

[¶14] We find 
the mechanism of Ms. Hurley's 1991 work-related injury is not consistent with 
low back pain or the need for a partial laminectomy and diskectomies at L4-L5 
some six years later. We do not find chiropractic adjustments of the lumbar 
spine to be objective medical evidence of low back injury at the time of her 
industrial accident. Ms. Hurley makes no mention of back pain to Drs. Crane, 
Metz, MacGuire and Schafer and by her own report, suffered chronic low back pain 
following a domestic violence incident in June, 1996. We agree with Dr. Weiner, 
Ms. Hurley's low back condition was most likely the result of the natural 
progression of her degenerative disk disease, aggravated by domestic violence 
and is not compensable under the Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Act.

[¶15] The 
Commission's statement shows that it did not ignore Dr. Walker's report and 
conclusions; it fully considered the evidence, but found the report unreliable 
for the reasons stated. The Commission concluded that the history Hurley 
provided to Dr. Walker was contradicted by Hurley's own statements during other 
examinations and the 1996 MRI, and this conclusion is supported by the evidence. 
The Commission also determined that the chiropractic diagnosis and treatment was 
not objective evidence that she injured her back in her work-related accident. 
Because Dr. Walker based his conclusion on the chiropractic treatments and 
notes, the Commission gave his report no weight in their consideration of the 
evidence. The role of the Medical Commission is to resolve medically contested 
issues through the professional expertise of health care providers. See Snyder 
v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 957 P.2d 289, 295 (Wyo. 1998). The 
Commission's role includes determining the weight to be given to medical opinion 
testimony, and will not be reweighed upon review. Contrary to Hurley's 
assertions, the Medical Commission is not legally obligated to accept the 
findings of an impartial, appointed independent medical examiner if, in their 
expertise, the Commission determines the factual basis for the report and 
conclusion is not credible or reliable.

[¶16] The order 
denying benefits is affirmed.

Footnotes

1 It appears 
that the MRI was taken in September of 1996 and the doctor's letter is dated 
incorrectly.