Title: Matter of Claim of Fortier

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Matter of Claim of Fortier1996 WY 18910 P.2d 1356Case Number: 95-83Decided: 02/01/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation 

JACKIE C. FORTIER, an Employee of Life Care Center of 
Cheyenne.

 

JACKIE C. FORTIER 

Appellant (Petitioner), 

 

 

v. 

 

 

STATE of WYOMING, ex rel. WYOMING WORKER'S 

COMPENSATION DIVISION,  

Appellee (Respondent).

 

 

Appeal 
from The District Court of Laramie County 

The 
Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

 

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

George Santini of Santini Law Offices, 
Cheyenne.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

William U. Hill, Attorney General, John W. Renneisen, 
Deputy Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney 
General.

 

Before THOMAS, MACY, 
TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ., and BROWN, J. (Retired).

LEHMAN, Justice. 

[¶1]      Jacqueline C. 
Fortier (Claimant) appeals the denial of her application for permanent total 
disability benefits. Finding the hearing officer's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law, we 
affirm.

 

[¶2]      Claimant states 
two issues:

 

1. Did the hearing officer err as a matter of law by 
failing to consider the effect of [Claimant's] 1990 back injury * * * in light 
of her pre-existing medical conditions in determining that those pre-existing 
conditions and not her 1990 back injury were the cause of her becoming 
permanently totally disabled?

 

2. Based upon an examination of the entire record, is 
the decision of the hearing officer that [Claimant's] other medical problems are 
the reasons she is unable to return to work arbitrary, capricious, and contrary 
to law because it is totally contrary to the evidence?

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Claimant is a 
licensed practical nurse who has an extensive medical history. She has high 
blood pressure, asthma, sleep apnea, obesity and suffers from headaches. 
Claimant has also had numerous surgeries: abdominal plication, cholecystectomy, 
cholecystostomy, hysterectomy, pituitary adenoma removal and repeat brain 
surgery to repair a spinal fluid leak. In addition, she also suffers from 
depression and anxiety.

 

[¶4]      Claimant suffered 
a work related injury to her back on February 1, 1987. As a result, she received 
a permanent partial disability award of 40 percent for the whole body, ten 
percent of which was for a permanent partial physical impairment. At the time, 
her doctors recommended that she not return to work.

 

[¶5]      After physical 
therapy, Claimant returned to work and subsequently began working for Life Care 
Center of Cheyenne, which was willing to accommodate her restricted work regime. 
On June 30, 1990, Claimant injured her back while attempting to assist a patient 
into a wheelchair. Claimant has not worked since that 
incident.

 

[¶6]      Claimant applied 
for permanent total disability benefits, which were denied by the Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Division (Division) on April 20, 1993. Claimant objected, 
and a hearing was held before a hearing officer on October 6, 1993. The hearing 
officer denied Claimant's application by order dated June 29, 1994. Claimant 
then sought review of that order in the district court, which affirmed the 
hearing officer's decision on January 26, 1995. Claimant now seeks a 
determination from this court.

 

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 

[¶7]      As we stated in 
Corman v. Worker's Compensation Div., 
909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996), the burden is on the person claiming worker's 
compensation benefits to prove that the injury is work related and not the 
result of a preexisting condition. The issue of whether a particular injury is 
connected with the claimant's employment is reviewed for substantial evidence. 
Id.; Stuckey v. State, ex rel. Worker's 
Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1098-99 (Wyo. 1995). Substantial evidence 
is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
hearing officer's conclusion, but it is more than a mere scintilla. Worker's Compensation Claim of Taylor v. 
State, 890 P.2d 559, 561 (Wyo. 1995). Where the findings of fact are 
supported by substantial evidence, we will not disturb the ruling of the hearing 
officer. Id. Any errors of law 
committed by the hearing officer will, of course, be corrected by this court. Matter of Cordova, 882 P.2d 880, 882 
(Wyo. 1994).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶8]      Initially, 
Claimant contends that the hearing officer committed an error of law by failing 
to properly apply our decisions in In re 
Scrogham, 52 Wyo. 232, 73 P.2d 300 (1937) and Exploration Drilling Co. v. Guthrie, 370 P.2d 362 (Wyo. 1962). Claimant focuses on the language:

 

Compensation is not made to rest under our law upon 
the condition of health of the employee or upon his freedom from liability to 
injury through a constitutional weakness or latent tendency. An award is made 
for an injury which is a hazard of the employment * * * it is the hazard of the 
employment acting upon the particular employee in his condition of health not 
what that hazard would be if acting upon a healthy employee or upon the average 
employee.

 

Scrogham, 
52 Wyo. at 251-52, 73 P.2d  at 307 (quoting In re Madden, 222 Mass. 487, 111 N.E. 379, 382 (1916)). The gist of the holding in those cases is that an 
employer must take his employees as he finds them. If an employee has a 
preexisting condition which makes him/her more susceptible to a particular 
injury than an "average employee," the employer is, nevertheless, still liable 
for worker's compensation benefits if that employee is injured on the 
job.

 

[¶9]      A review of the 
record clearly discloses that the hearing officer took due note of Claimant's 
preexisting condition and considered her 1990 injury in light of it. Simply 
because an employee has a preexisting condition which makes him/her susceptible 
to an injury does not obviate the requirement that the injury be work related. 
W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xi) (Cum.Supp. 1993). A claimant must still prove, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the injury was work related and not the 
consequence of any preexisting conditions. Corman, 909 P.2d  at 970. The hearing 
officer correctly applied the law.

 

[¶10]   Additionally Claimant argues that 
the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was not 
supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The burden of proof was on 
Claimant to show at the hearing that her injury was work related. The 
overwhelming evidence at the hearing discloses that it was her preexisting 
medical conditions, especially her weight, which were causing her back problems 
rather than the injury she suffered in 1990. One doctor noted that he was not 
sure what was causing Claimant's symptoms, but he suspected that if she lost 
weight most all of her medical problems would improve. Other evidence is in a 
similar vein. On the other hand, there is little evidence that the injury was 
related to the incident at work. The decision by the hearing officer is 
supported by substantial evidence, and we will not disturb 
it.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶11]   Claimant has failed in her burden 
to demonstrate error by the hearing officer or that his decision was unsupported 
by substantial evidence; accordingly, that decision is 
affirmed.