Title: PADILLA v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

PADILLA v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2004 WY 1084 P.3d 960Case Number: 03-61Decided: 02/14/2004
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2003

 

                                                                                                            

 

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF:

 

CHRISTENA 
PADILLA,

 

Appellant(Employee/Claimant),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee(Objector/Defendant).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Dion 
J. Custis, Cheyenne, Wyoming

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; 
Steve Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Assistant 
Attorney General

 

 

 

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

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]           
Christena 
Padilla appeals the denial of worker's compensation benefits.  We affirm.

 

 

ISSUE

 

[¶2]           
The 
Appellant presents the following issue for review:

 

Did 
the district court err as a matter of law in determining that Ms. Padilla was 
not eligible for permanent partial disability benefits, and past and future 
medical expenses pursuant to § 27-14-405 and § 27-14-401, because she has not 
met her burden of proof to show that treatment, including surgery, for two 
herniated cervical discs was the result of her work-related 
injury?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
Ms. 
Padilla has worked for Blue Cross-Blue Shield for over fourteen years as a 
microfilm technician.  In July 2001, 
she saw her family doctor complaining of pain in her neck, radiating into her 
right shoulder and arm.  Upon 
examination, Ms. Padilla was found to have two herniated cervical discs and 
surgical intervention was necessary.  
Ms. Padilla filed a claim for worker's compensation, claiming that the 
herniated discs were the result of the repetitive motion activities required by 
her employment.  The Workers' 
Compensation Division (the Division) denied benefits because it claimed that Ms. 
Padilla's injuries were not related to any work activity.  Upon review, the Workers' Compensation 
Medical Commission (the Medical Commission) determined that Ms. Padilla failed 
to carry her burden of proof that her injury was caused by work activity.  The district court affirmed the decision 
of the Medical Commission.

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶4]           
Although 
the district court has already reviewed this case, this Court affords no 
deference to the findings or decision of the district court.  This Court reviews the case as if it had 
come here directly from the agency.  
Judicial review of an agency decision is guided by statute.  Section 16-3-114(c) 
provides:

 

(c) 
To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing 
court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and 
statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of 
an agency action.  In making the 
following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts 
of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial 
error.  The reviewing court 
shall:

(i) 
Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; 
and

(ii) 
Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) 
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with law;

(B) 
Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;

(C) 
In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking 
statutory right;

(D) 
Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(E) 
Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute.

 

Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003).

            

[¶5]           
When 
an appeal is from a contested case proceeding under the Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act in which both parties presented evidence and factual findings were 
made, this Court reviews the findings pursuant to § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E).  This Court reviews the entire record to 
determine if the decision of the agency is supported by substantial 
evidence.  Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's 
conclusions.  It is more than a 
scintilla of evidence.

 

[¶6]           
If 
this Court finds that the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, 
then we further review the decision pursuant to § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A).  This Court examines the entire record to 
determine if the agency action was arbitrary or capricious.  Under the umbrella of arbitrary and 
capricious actions would fall potential mistakes such as inconsistent or 
incomplete findings of fact or any violation of due process.  An agency action will not be found to be 
arbitrary or capricious as long as there is some rational basis for the 
action.  See Newman v. Wyo. 
Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶¶7-24, 49 P.3d 163, ¶¶7-24 
(Wyo. 2002).  

 

[¶7]           
At 
an administrative hearing, the claimant bears the burden of proving all 
essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.  This includes proving that her injury 
arose out of and in the course of employment.  Whether an injury is work-related is a 
question of fact.  This Court defers 
to the Medical Commission on issues concerning credibility and weight to be 
given conflicting evidence and testimony.  
Newman, ¶26; Ikenberry v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Compensation Div., 5 P.3d 799, 802 (Wyo. 2000) ("The agency, as the trier of 
fact, is charged with weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of 
witnesses.") 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶8]           
The 
Medical Commission denied benefits because it determined that Ms. Padilla had 
not presented adequate evidence that her injury was related to her work 
duties.  The evidence presented by 
Ms. Padilla was the testimony of two co-workers regarding Ms. Padilla's work 
duties; Ms. Padilla's testimony regarding her work duties and her injury; the 
deposition testimony of Ms. Padilla's treating physician; and various medical 
records.  

 

[¶9]           
With 
regard to Ms. Padilla's work duties, the Medical Commission determined that her 
duties did not entail repetitive motion activities because she engaged in 
several different activities during the course of an average workday.  Ms. Padilla, of course, believes that 
she did present sufficient evidence to support the repetitive nature of her 
various work activities.  Because 
the determination of this particular issue is not decisive in this case, this 
Court will accept, for the sake of further argument, that Ms. Padilla's 
employment duties include repetitive motion activities.  The decisive issue is whether Ms. 
Padilla adequately linked her job activities to her injury, the herniated 
cervical discs.

 

[¶10]      Ms. 
Padilla's treating doctor opined "[i]t is quite clear in the medical literature 
that repetitive neck motions are frequently the cause of degenerative disc 
disease in the neck."  He then 
stated that based upon the history he had been given by Ms. Padilla, he related 
her injury to the repetitive motion activities of her work.  During his deposition, he testified that 
"[t]here is ample medical literature that supports the fact that repetitive 
motion type injuries do result in degenerative changes in the neck and do, 
indeed, predispose individuals to degenerative problems and herniated discs in 
the cervical spine and the spine in general."  He further testified that the herniated 
cervical discs suffered by Ms. Padilla were consistent with fourteen years of 
employment involving the same, repetitive tasks.  In offering this opinion, however, the 
doctor was referring to repetitive motion activities only in general terms.  The doctor testified that he had no 
knowledge of what Ms. Padilla's actual work activities entailed. 

 

[¶11]      In 
an apparent inconsistency, Ms. Padilla's treating doctor strongly linked Ms. 
Padilla's herniated cervical discs to a significant precipitating trauma.  When asked if herniated discs can be 
caused by the natural aging process, the doctor responded:

 

Certainly 
they can.  Generally speaking, 
there's an incident which occurs which a person can pinpoint as being 
responsible for a herniated disc, particularly a disc as large as the one that 
she has.  I would not expect to see, 
as part of normal, everyday wear-and-tear, discs this size, although it can 
occur, be it exceedingly  I think nearly unheard of to have that be the 
case.   

 

While 
this testimony clearly rules out natural aging as a cause of Ms. Padilla's 
herniated discs, it also seems to rule out repetitive motion.  The same occurs when the doctor was 
asked if coughing could have caused Ms. Padilla's herniated 
discs:

 

If 
you were to ask me whether or not I see patients who become symptomatic because 
of disc herniations as a result of bronchitis or coughing spells, I would tell 
you that of the several thousand patients that I've seen in my career, I've 
never seen more than maybe one person tell me that a cough or a sneeze herniated 
a disc.

In 
the same vein, I've seen a fairly large percentage of patients which have had 
work-related accidents or incidents occur in which they were straining or 
pulling on something that herniated a disc.  So to answer your question, I think it 
is improbable that there's a relationship between the two, but it's 
possible.

 

Thus, 
not only did the doctor testify that herniated discs of the magnitude suffered 
by Ms. Padilla generally are caused by a precipitating traumatic event, he 
opined that the traumatic event generally would be something fairly significant, 
certainly more significant than a cough or a sneeze.

 

[¶12]      The 
doctor attempted to clarify his statement somewhat throughout his 
deposition.  When asked if herniated 
discs the size of Ms. Padilla's typically result only from substantial trauma, 
the doctor replied:

 

Not 
necessarily.  My point is that 
generally discs that are that large result in symptoms that are fairly easy to 
trace back to a specific incident.  
In other words, I would expect a disc that size to result in pretty 
noticeable symptoms for a patient.  
That's not to say that it absolutely always has to be that way.  Generally speaking, a disc which is that 
size will let a person know that it's actually there, and they'll be able to 
tell you when they began to feel the presence of that disc . . . .  

 

A 
little later when asked if this type of disc herniation could result without a 
significant precipitating traumatic event he testified:

To 
say that something could not happen is too strong of a statement.  I would say very likely there should be 
an incident which occurs to cause a disc to herniate with this magnitude.  That does not mean that you can't 
herniate a disc like this coughing or sneezing or tripping over a crack in the 
sidewalk.  These discs can herniate 
for various reasons.  It's more 
likely the case that some form of fairly significant trauma occurred to cause a 
disc to herniate to this magnitude. 

 

[¶13]      The 
only significant traumatic event related by Ms. Padilla happened in January 1998 
when Ms. Padilla fell off a chair at work.  
Among other factors ruling out the fall as the precipitating event was 
her treating doctor's deposition testimony that, although he could not say 
exactly how long the herniations had been present, he did testify that in his 
opinion they were no more than two years old.  As reflected in the doctor's notes and 
as testified to by Ms. Padilla at the hearing, Ms. Padilla stated that she began 
noticing the pain in late April 2001.  
In her hearing testimony, she specifically denied the occurrence of a 
precipitating traumatic incident.  
Instead, she related her pain to the repetitive motion activities of her 
work.  She testified that the pain 
was present when she performed her employment tasks.  

 

[¶14]      Ms. 
Padilla presented no further testimony regarding the causation of her herniated 
cervical discs.  The Medical 
Commission thus was presented with inconsistent evidence regarding 
causation.  On the one hand, Ms. 
Padilla testified that she related her injury to the repetitive motion 
activities required by her employment.  
This testimony was supported by her treating doctor to the extent that he 
testified that her injury was consistent with long-term repetitive motion 
activities.  On the other hand, Ms. 
Padilla's treating doctor testified that he would almost always expect 
herniations the size of those suffered by Ms. Padilla to be the result of a 
significant, precipitating traumatic event.  Ms. Padilla specifically denied being 
subject to any such traumatic event.

 

[¶15]      Referring 
back to our standard of review, whether an injury is work-related is a question 
of fact.  This Court must defer to 
the Medical Commission on issues concerning credibility and weight to be given 
conflicting evidence and testimony.  
Given the contradictory nature of the evidence presented by Ms. Padilla, 
this Court cannot say that the Medical Commission erred in determining that Ms. 
Padilla did not present sufficient, credible evidence to support a finding that 
the repetitive motion activities of her job were responsible for her herniated 
cervical discs.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶16]      
Ms. 
Padilla had the burden of presenting adequate evidence to relate her herniated 
cervical discs to her employment.  
Ms. Padilla and her treating doctor presented factually inconsistent 
testimony.  Faced with this 
inconsistent testimony, the Medical Commission was justified in finding that Ms. 
Padilla had not carried her burden of proof.  The decision of the Medical Commission 
is affirmed.