Title: Pacific Power & Light v. Heermann

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Pacific Power & Light v. Heermann1994 WY 47872 P.2d 1171Case Number: 93-207Decided: 04/22/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
PACIFIC 
POWER & LIGHT,

Appellant 
(Employer/Petitioner),

 

v.

 

Wendy 
K. HEERMANN,

Appellee 
(Employee/Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Fremont County,

Elizabeth 
A. Kail, J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Stephenson 
D. Emery of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, Casper.

Representing 
Appellee:

Robert 
A. Nicholas of Hettinger & Leedy, Riverton.

 

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

MACY, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Pacific 
Power & Light (hereinafter PP&L) appeals from the district court's order 
which affirmed the hearing examiner's award of permanent partial disability 
benefits to Appellee Wendy K. Heermann.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      PP&L presents 
five issues:

1. 
The Office of Administrative Hearings . . . erred in ostensibly finding that 
Appellee . . . proved a causal relationship between her current physical 
condition and a work place injury. No physician has ever diagnosed her current 
physical condition, therefore, the etiology of that condition cannot be deemed 
to be work-related.

2. 
The Office erred in considering Dr. Whipp's deposition testimony and reports 
because Dr. Whipp was not qualified under Rule 702, Wyoming Rules of Evidence, 
based on his admission that he was not an expert in the use of the American 
Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment . . ., and 
because he violated W.S. 27-14-405(a) by using an outdated edition of the AMA 
Guides in rating Claimant.

3. 
The Office erred by awarding Claimant a permanent partial disability because the 
AMA Guides provide for a 0% impairment rating when the claimant suffers no loss 
of range of motion.

4. 
The Office erred in concluding that the AMA Guides provide an impairment rating 
solely for subjective complaints of pain.

5. 
The Office denied Appellant . . . a full contested-case hearing by not allowing 
closing arguments.

[¶4]      Ms. Heermann 
worked for PP&L as a meter reader in Lander, Wyoming. According to her 
testimony, she struggled on Wednesday, October 17, 1990, to complete a hilly 
portion of her route after a heavy snowfall because her feet were slipping on 
the ice underneath the fresh snow. Her left hip and both of her knees began to 
hurt, so she had to leave work early that day.

[¶5]      The next day, Ms. 
Heermann returned to work, but she continued to feel pain in her hip and knees. 
She reported her pain to her employer after she had finished working. Ms. 
Heermann decided not to return to work on Friday and spent the next three days 
attempting to recuperate. She returned to work on Monday but was unable to 
complete her route because she was in pain.

[¶6]      Ms. Heermann and 
her supervisor both filed worker's compensation injury reports. In his report, 
the supervisor certified that Ms. Heermann's injuries were 
work-related.

[¶7]      Ms. Heermann's 
original physician concluded that she was suffering from tendinitis, and he 
referred her to an orthopaedic surgeon who became her treating physician. The 
treating physician was unable to render a definite diagnosis. The Workers' 
Compensation Division's independent medical examiner determined that Ms. 
Heermann was suffering from bursitis and chondromalacia.

[¶8]      When the Workers' 
Compensation Division requested a permanent partial disability rating from the 
treating physician, the treating physician rated Ms. Heermann's injuries at 
sixteen percent total physical impairment. On the basis of that rating, the 
Workers' Compensation Division found that Ms. Heermann was eligible to receive a 
permanent partial disability award. PP&L objected, and the Workers' 
Compensation Division sought a second rating from a rheumatologist. The 
rheumatologist found that Ms. Heermann did not suffer from any loss of range of 
motion and issued an impairment rating of zero percent.

[¶9]      A contested case 
hearing was held on December 15, 1992. The hearing examiner concluded that Ms. 
Heermann's injuries were work-related and awarded her a physical impairment 
rating of ten percent. PP&L petitioned for a review in the district court, 
and the district court affirmed the hearing examiner's 
decision.

[¶10]   The scope of our review of 
administrative decisions is defined in WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) 
(1990).

[¶11]   PP&L argues that, because Ms. 
Heermann's injuries had never been definitely diagnosed, the hearing examiner 
erred when he concluded that those injuries were compensable. The term "injury" 
for worker's compensation purposes is defined in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) 
(Supp. 1993):

(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.

Although 
the treating physician was unable to render a definite diagnosis, he testified 
that he believed that Ms. Heermann's pain was precipitated by "doing a lot of 
walking during the snowstorm." Ms. Heermann testified that the pain in her legs 
and hip was caused from her slipping while she was walking her route. Her 
supervisor's injury report certified that her knee and hip injuries were caused 
by "reading meters in snow and ice."

[¶12]   The hearing examiner was in the 
best position to assess the credibility of the evidence before him. Romero v. 
Davy McKee Corporation, 854 P.2d 59, 63-64 (Wyo. 1993). The record contained 
substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's finding that Ms. 
Heermann's knee and hip pain was work-related.

[¶13]   PP&L contends that the hearing 
examiner violated W.R.E. 702 and 104(a) by failing to exclude the testimony and 
reports of the treating physician. At his deposition, the treating physician 
conceded that he was not an expert in the use of the American Medical 
Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (hereinafter AMA 
Guides) and that he had not received any formal training in their use. According 
to his testimony, he, nonetheless, applied the AMA Guides in rating Ms. 
Heermann's impairment.

[¶14]   Pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 
27-14-405(a) (1991), a "physician licensed to practice medicine or surgery" is 
qualified to provide a physical impairment rating. Section 27-14-405(a) does not 
require that a physician possess any expertise beyond having a medical license. 
PP&L does not challenge the treating physician's credentials as an 
orthopaedic surgeon. The physician's testimony was relevant because it tended to 
prove the degree of Ms. Heermann's impairment, and the testimony was not so 
unreliable that it should have been excluded. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-108(a) 
(1990).

[¶15]   PP&L also claims that the 
evidence of the impairment rating given by the treating physician should have 
been excluded because the physician failed to use the most recent edition of the 
AMA Guides as required by § 27-14-405(a). The record does not support PP & 
L's claim. The treating physician admitted that he had used an outdated version 
of the AMA Guides. After a hearing on PP&L's motion to strike the testimony, 
the hearing examiner ordered the treating physician to rate Ms. Heermann's 
impairment using the revised AMA Guides. The treating physician reevaluated Ms. 
Heermann's impairment and concluded that the rating under the revised AMA Guides 
was the same as the initial rating. The treating physician complied with § 
27-14-405(a).

[¶16]   PP&L challenges the hearing 
examiner's application of the AMA Guides, claiming that the AMA Guides do not 
permit an impairment rating for subjective complaints of pain. PP&L also 
claims that, because Ms. Heermann experienced no loss of range of motion, her 
impairment rating under the AMA Guides should be zero percent. We address these 
two claims together because the treating physician based both his range of 
motion finding and his impairment rating on Ms. Heermann's 
pain.

[¶17]   The treating physician found that 
Ms. Heermann had a loss of range of motion in her legs and hip. The other 
experts who tested Ms. Heermann's range of motion found that she did not have 
any loss.

[¶18]   In Allen v. Natrona County School 
District No. One, 811 P.2d 1 (Wyo. 1991), we held that a claimant was not 
entitled to receive a permanent partial disability award because her subjective 
pain did not reduce her range of motion and, thus, did not constitute an 
impairment under the AMA Guides. 811 P.2d  at 2-4. We suggested that the AMA 
Guides "allow for an impairment rating for pain, when the pain is great enough 
to cause an impairment." 811 P.2d  at 4 n. 1.

[¶19]   In Allen, both of the 
physicians who examined the claimant found that her pain did not cause a loss of 
range of motion. 811 P.2d  at 2. Here, the treating physician found that Ms. 
Heermann's pain did cause a loss of range of motion. Consistent with our opinion 
in Allen, we hold that subjective pain may support an impairment rating 
under the AMA Guides when that pain reduces the claimant's range of motion. 
Accord Sutton v. Quality Furniture Company, 191 Ga. App. 279, 381 S.E.2d 389 (1989) (subjective pain may support an impairment rating under the AMA 
Guides); AMA Guides at 75 ("A grading scheme and procedure for determining 
impairment of a body part that is affected by pain, discomfort, or loss of 
sensation are found in Tables 10a and 10b, respectively"). See also 
STEVEN BABITSKY & HARRY DEAN SEWALL, UNDERSTANDING THE AMA GUIDES IN 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION §§ 2.4 at 37 & 5.13 (1992) (describing procedures for 
rating pain under the AMA Guides).

[¶20]   The hearing examiner's award of 
permanent partial disability pursuant to the AMA Guides for Ms. Heermann's loss 
of range of motion in her legs and hip resulting from subjective pain was not 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 
with the law. Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A).

[¶21]   PP&L contends that the hearing 
examiner denied it a full contested case hearing under WYO. STAT. § 16-3-107(j) 
(Supp. 1993) when he failed to permit PP&L to present a closing argument at 
the end of the contested case hearing. The hearing examiner stated: "I don't 
think I need closings at this point." PP&L did not object. Although § 
16-3-107(j) provides an opportunity for a party to present argument, PP&L's 
failure to assert its right to utilize that opportunity by objecting at the 
close of the hearing amounted to both a waiver and invited error. See, e.g., 
Pearson v. State, 866 P.2d 1297, 1300 (Wyo. 1994) (failure to argue error at 
trial constituted invited error); Farbotnik v. State, 850 P.2d 594, 600 
(Wyo. 1993) (waiver of reporting of trial proceedings presumed from failure to 
object); and Mekss v. Wyoming Girls' School, 813 P.2d 185, 193 n. 6 (Wyo. 
1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 872, 116 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1992) 
(waiver of opportunity to make closing arguments).

[¶22]   Affirmed.