Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF FRANKS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF FRANKS2002 WY 7746 P.3d 876Case Number: 01-98Decided: 05/21/2002

April Term, A.D. 2002

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF BOB FRANKS,

AN 
EMPLOYEE OF GREYBULL

DEVELOPMENT 
CORP.:

BOB 
FRANKS, 

Appellant(Petitioner) 
,

v.

STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel, WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

                                                   Appellee(Respondent) 
.

W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b) Certification

 from the District Court of Big Horn 
County

The 
Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

Bobbi 
D. Bronnenberg of Garrison & Bronnenberg, P.C., Cody, 
WY.

Representing 
Appellee:

Hoke 
MacMillan, Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; 
and David L. Delicath, Assistant Attorney General.

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

 

LEHMAN, 
Chief Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant 
Bob Franks appeals from the final decision of the Office of Administrative 
Hearings which denied his request for workers' compensation benefits.  

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Franks presents 
the following issues for our review:

1.  Whether the hearing examiner erred when he ruled that 
the appellant Bob Franks failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his back 
condition was related to the work-related accident on May 17, 2000.

(a)    Whether the hearing examiner erred when he 
ignored direct evidence that the injury to Appellant's back occurred as a result 
of the work-related accident on May 17, 2000 and/or that his back condition was 
materially aggravated as a result of the May 17, 2000 accident.

Appellee Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) 
phrases its issue in the following manner:

Did the Hearing Examiner correctly find that appellant failed to 
prove that the failure of his prior spinal fusion surgery was the result of a 
compensable work injury?

FACTS

[¶4]      
On May 17, 2000, Franks was employed by Greybull Development as a 
construction worker.  On that date, 
it was raining heavily and Franks was pulling a trailer behind a truck on a 
muddy road when the truck became stuck in the mud.  Franks unhooked the trailer and pulled 
the truck forward.  Franks went back 
to the trailer to set it on a round block of wood, but as he attempted to do so, 
the trailer slipped, pinning his left leg.  
He pushed the trailer off of his leg; and, when he did so, he felt his 
back pop and a burning sensation in his neck.  

[¶5]      
Franks went to the emergency room for treatment on May 18, 2000.  The emergency room physician referred 
Franks to Steven Emery, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in Cody, who saw Franks on 
May 26, 2000, and ultimately diagnosed "severe neural foraminal stenosis 
bilaterally at L5-S1, and on the left at L4-5 multifactorial."  In the meantime, Franks filed an injury 
report with the Worker's Compensation Division on May 19, 2000.  

[¶6]      
At the hearing, both sides presented evidence regarding a work-related 
injury that Franks had suffered in 1991 while working as a laborer in Texas and, 
as a result of which, Franks underwent surgery to have a spinal fusion at the 
L5-S1 level.  Franks was given a 
whole body impairment rating of 15 percent and was awarded worker's compensation 
benefits for that injury.  Franks 
argued that the May 17, 2000 incident either reinjured his back or materially 
aggravated that preexisting condition.  
The Division countered that Franks' current symptoms were the result of 
the preexisting condition rather than from any new or aggravating injury.  

[¶7]      
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Division concluded that Franks' 
back condition was preexisting and denied benefits.  Franks appealed this decision to the 
district court,  which certified the 
case here pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).  

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8]      
An administrative agency's decision certified directly to this court is 
reviewed under the same appellate standards applicable to the reviewing court of 
the first instance.  Wesaw v. 
Quality Maintenance, 2001 WY 17, ¶8 19 P.3d 500, ¶8 (Wyo. 2001).  Our judicial review is limited to those 
considerations specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001), 
which provides in pertinent part:

(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:

. . .

(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[.]

[¶9]      
When we review findings of fact, we examine the entire record to 
determine if substantial evidence supports the agency's findings.  Wesaw, ¶9.  If the agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency.  Id.  "Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of 
the agency.  It is more than a 
scintilla of evidence."  Id.  

[¶10]   An 
administrative agency's conclusions of law are affirmed only if this court 
determines that they are in accord with the law.  Wesaw, ¶8.  We do not defer to the agency's 
determination regarding conclusions of law, and we will correct any error the 
agency made in either interpreting or applying the law.  Id.

DISCUSSION

[¶11]   Franks claims 
that the hearing examiner erred by denying his claim on the basis that his 
injury was preexisting.  The 
Division responds that the evidence supported the hearing examiner's 
decision.  At the core of this case 
is a May 29, 1991 injury that Franks sustained while working as a laborer in 
Texas.  Dr. Curtis Thorpe, Franks' 
treating physician for that injury, noted on March 12, 1992:

X-rays of the lumbar spine do show a spondylolysis at L5-S1 and a 
Grade I spondylolisthesis L5-S1.  
Myelogram done at St. Elizabeth Hospital shows a bulging disc at L4-L5 
and a sensitive area because of his spondylo as L5-S1.  Post-myelogram CT shows a large 
spondylitic ridge and bulging disc impingement the nerve root on the right at 
L5-S1.  The disc at L4-L5 seems to 
be intact.  There is a report of an 
MRI scan that does show degenerative discs at L4-L5 and L5-S1.  I have explained to this gentleman at 
length that he does have a rather severe back condition, that probably will 
prevent him to work as a laborer.

Dr. Thorpe operated on Franks on March 31, 1992, to fuse his spine 
together at the L5-S1 level.  The 
Texas Workers' Compensation Commission declared that his injury was compensable 
and awarded Franks benefits for a 15% whole body impairment rating.  

[¶12]   In 1993, a 
year after his surgery, Franks visited Dr. Thorpe complaining of back and leg 
pain.  Franks visited Dr. Thorpe 
again in 1996 for continued back and leg pain.  Dr. Thorpe expressed concern after both 
of those visits about whether Franks' fusion was solid or not.  

[¶13]   Under the 
worker's compensation statutory scheme, an injury does not include "[a]ny injury 
or condition preexisting at the time of employment with the employer against 
whom a claim is made."  Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(F) (Lexis 1999).  
A preexisting condition may, however, be compensable if the employment 
"aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the preexisting condition to produce 
the disability for which the employee is seeking benefits."  Brees v. Gulley Enterprises, 
Inc., 6 P.3d 128, 131 (Wyo. 2000). 

[¶14]   Dr. Emery 
testified at the hearing by way of a deposition.  During Dr. Emery's deposition, he 
testified that his physical exam of Franks left him skeptical of the extent of 
Franks' symptoms because Franks demonstrated give-way weakness of all muscle 
groups of the upper and lower extremities, which was inconsistent and impossible 
to rate.  He explained that when you 
see give-way weakness in all muscle groups, "it generally means the patient just 
isn't trying."  He went on to say 
that "if he truly had the muscle weakness that I examined, if the muscle gave 
way at that point, he would have been unable to have walked in the room or back 
out or use his hands in any fashion."  

[¶15]   Dr. Emery 
ordered an MRI on May 31, 2000, which showed "severe neural foraminal stenosis 
bilaterally at L5-S1, and on the left at L4-5 mutifactorial.  There is lateral recess stenosis 
bilaterally moderate at L4-5.  There 
is a herniated disc at L4-5."  He 
testified that based on these findings, Franks' stenosis condition was likely 
the cause of his back and leg pain.  
Dr. Emery testified with a level of medical certainty that this 
degeneration or spinal stenosis was not caused by the May 17, 2000 injury.  Dr. Emery then stated that "[i]t is 
possible that the patient's injury was related to his work injury.  However it'sit is my opinion that his 
work injuryor I'm sorry, his preexisting condition is probably more related to 
his condition than the work injury."  

[¶16]   Franks' 
medical expert witness, Dr. Robert Wood, a neurosurgeon, also testified by way 
of deposition.  Dr. Wood opined that 
since Franks was better after his surgery in 1991 and able to work until May 17, 
2000, he believed that Franks' fusion was solid during that period of time.  He then gave his opinion that the May 
17, 2000 injury aggravated Franks' preexisting condition by causing the fusion 
to rupture.  

[¶17]   Dr. Wood's 
perceptions and opinions were based upon a history that Franks gave him that he 
had not had any problems since his surgery until the May 17, 2000 injury.  This information is contrary to medical 
records kept by Dr. Thorpe, which indicate that Franks had visited him 
complaining of back and leg pain in 1993 and again in 1996.  Dr. Thorpe's notes also reveal that he 
was not at all sure that the fusion was solid and indeed that he was fearful 
that it was not.  Dr. Thorpe's notes 
finally document a discussion he had with Franks during which Dr. Thorpe 
explained to Franks that his injury was serious and that he probably would no 
longer be able to work as a laborer.  

[¶18]   We agree with 
the hearing examiner's decision to consider Dr. Wood's testimony to be less 
persuasive than Dr. Emery's testimony because Dr. Wood's opinions were based 
upon the incomplete and inaccurate information provided by Franks that he had no 
problems following his fusion.  Dr. 
Thorpe's notes show otherwise.  We 
hold that Franks failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the May 
17, 2000 incident caused any new injury or materially aggravated his preexisting 
condition.  

CONCLUSION

[¶19]   The evidence 
demonstrated that Franks' current symptoms are the result of the preexisting 
condition rather than from a new injury or a material aggravation of that 
condition.  We hold that substantial 
evidence supported the hearing examiner's decision.

[¶20]   
Affirmed.