Title: Matter of Zielinske

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Matter of Zielinske1998 WY 66959 P.2d 706Case Number: 96-309Decided: 05/20/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

In the 
MATTER OF the Worker's Compensation Claim of Carol ZIELINSKE, an Employee of 
Johnson County School District No. 1:

Carol ZIELINSKE, Appellant 
(Employee-claimant),

v.

JOHNSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,. Appellee 
(Employer-objector),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Johnson County, John 
C. Brackley, J.

 

Rene Botten of Northern 
Wyoming Law Associates, Sheridan, for Appellant.

Timothy J. Kirven of Kirven 
and Kirven, P.C., Buffalo, for Appellee Johnson County School District No. 
1.

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, 
for Appellee State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division.

 

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

 

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

 [¶1] Appellant contests the hearing examiner's denial 
of worker's compensation benefits for occupational asthma. The hearing examiner 
found that appellant had not reported her claim within the statutory time period 
and failed to rebut the presumption that the claim be denied pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. § 27-14-502 (Repl. 1991). The hearing examiner also found that benefits 
were precluded because appellant had knowingly engaged in an injurious practice 
by continuing to smoke cigarettes against her doctor's recommendation. As the 
hearing examiner correctly applied the statutory mandates regarding appellant's 
belated report of her claim, we do not address the second basis for the hearing 
examiner's decision.

 

[¶2] 
Affirmed.

 

                                             
I. ISSUES

 

[¶3] Appellant, Carol 
Zielinske (Zielinske), states the following issues:

 

I. 
Whether Carol Zielinske complied with Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-502 in filing her 
claim.

 

II. Whether the Division or employer were prejudiced 
in their investigation or their ability to monitor medical treatment by * * * 
August 9, 1994, claimant's filing date.

 

III. Whether the Hearing Officer arbitrarily found 
that Carol Zielinske had engaged/persisted in the unsanitary or injurious 
practice of smoking against her doctor's orders as, in reality, no doctor had 
ordered Carol Zielinske to quit smoking and there was no medical evidence that 
Carol Zielinske's condition was affected by her smoking.

 

[¶4] Appellee, Johnson 
County School District No. 1 (School District), identifies the following 
issues:

 

A. Did the Hearing Officer properly find that 
Appellant failed to comply with the W.S. § 27-14-502(a) requirement that a 
claimant file his/her report in the office of the clerk of court within 10 days 
after the injury became apparent?

 

B. Did the Hearing Officer properly find Appellant 
failed to rebut the presumption under W.S. § 27-14-502(c) that the claim should 
be denied?

 

C. Did the Hearing Officer properly find Appellant 
engaged in or persisted in an unsanitary or injurious practice which tended to 
imperil or retard her recovery?

 

[¶5] Appellee, State ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (the Division), simply states the issue 
as:

 

A. Were the Hearing Examiner's findings and 
conclusions supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with 
law.

 

                                             
II. FACTS

 

[¶6] Zielinske was hired as 
a custodian with the School District in June 1993 and assigned to work at the 
Meadowlark Elementary School and the administration office. Her duties required 
close contact with chemicals found in cleaning products used by the School 
District. Approximately one month after she began her job, Zielinske experienced 
sinus problems and headaches. Some time that summer, Zielinske approached her 
immediate supervisor, head custodian Dan Rhoades (Rhoades), and told him the 
floor wax stripper smelled bad and was giving her headaches. Rhoades relayed 
this information to the school principal, Bob Tyser (Tyser).  Tyser told Rhoades to monitor the 
situation and that he would check on procuring a respiratory 
mask.

 

[¶7] The School District did 
not provide respiratory equipment. Neither did Zielinske register any further 
complaint until June 1994. In the meantime, Zielinske visited the Buffalo 
Medical Center in Buffalo, Wyoming on several occasions for sinus and 
respiratory problems. She was told her symptoms were likely caused by her 
presence in an elementary school environment where children often transmit 
germs.

 

[¶8] Due to her continuing 
respiratory symptoms, Zielinske contacted the Billings Medical Clinic in Montana 
for further assessment of her condition. While making the appointment for her 
first visit, Zielinske talked with Dr. Schumann, who instructed her to bring 
"material safety data sheets" (MSDS sheets) which listed the chemical components 
of the cleaning products used in her job.  
Although Zielinske had not previously been aware of the MSDS sheets, upon 
inquiry she was directed to a book located in the custodian's room which 
contained the information. She then obtained further listings from the 
administration office.

 

[¶9] Zielinske was examined 
by Dr. Schumann on June 7, 1994. Dr. Schumann's notes state: "Patient scheduled 
an appointment for evaluation because she feels that she is getting sick due to 
exposure to chemicals at work." During this visit, Dr. Schumann reviewed the 
MSDS sheets with Zielinske and concluded: "We'll first of all give her work 
restrictions indicating that she not work around waxes or wax strippers until we 
further investigate this." Dr. Schumann also "strongly recommended" Zielinske 
discontinue smoking and arranged an appointment for Zielinske with Dr. Merchant, 
a respiratory specialist.

 

[¶10] Zielinske returned to 
work and provided Tyser with a work restriction sheet, signed by Dr. Schumann, 
stating she was not to work with any fresh wax or wax strippers. Tyser agreed to 
make sure she was not around the restricted substances until they knew more. He 
then instructed Rhoades to assign Zielinske only those duties which would comply 
with Dr. Schumann's recommendation.  
From that time on, the School District did not require Zielinske to come 
in contact with the offending chemicals.

 

[¶11] On June 27, 1994, 
Zielinske was examined by Dr. Merchant. His notes from that visit state that the 
symptoms reported by Zielinske are "most suggestive of asthma," but that this 
preliminary diagnosis is "not confirmed." Dr. Merchant further noted: "It is 
likely the chemicals she is working with are acting as respiratory irritants and 
exacerbating her asthma. It is also very clear that her smoking is playing a 
significant role in this as well." Dr. Merchant then discussed the options from 
which the diagnosis of asthma could be confirmed. Zielinske chose to return to 
the workplace without restrictions to do "peak flow monitoring" which would give 
"specific information about exposures in the work place * * *." Zielinske was 
instructed to return in one month unless significant symptoms required earlier 
contact.

 

[¶12] Zielinske testified 
that she informed both Tyser and Rhoades of her intention to re-expose herself 
to the formerly restricted cleaning products to verify the cause of her 
symptoms. Tyser and Rhoades, however, denied that Zielinske told them of the 
proposed testing. From June 29 through July 27, 1994, Zielinske monitored her 
breathing four times a day. During this time, Zielinske testified she continued 
to smoke and deliberately worked with fresh floor wax and wax 
strippers.

 

[¶13] Tyser testified that 
his contemporaneous notes on July 27, 1994 reflected Zielinske told him her 
doctor informed her that exposure to chemicals at work was causing her 
bronchitis. The record indicates Zielinske had spoken with her doctors over the 
telephone during the time she had monitored her breathing, but her second 
appointment with Dr. Merchant did not occur until the next day, July 28, 1994. 
Dr. Merchant's notes state that on that date, Zielinske was informed that the 
diagnosis of asthma was confirmed, and that she "was advised to continue peak 
flow monitoring and advised that this is a potentially fatal condition and to 
reenter the work place with caution."

 

[¶14] Zielinske did not 
report this information to the School District, nor did she advise Tyser of 
another visit with Dr. Merchant on August 1, 1994. On August 4, 1994, after 
reviewing Dr. Merchant's notes, Dr. Schumann telephoned Zielinske at work to 
discuss Dr. Merchant's conclusions. Zielinske then informed Tyser, who was 
present in the office at the time of the call, that her doctor stated she could 
no longer work with cleaning chemicals.

 

[¶15] Immediately following 
this disclosure, Tyser and Zielinske discussed her options. Tyser requested a 
list of the problematic cleaning products or chemicals in order to check on the 
availability of alternative products. The only response to this request was a 
faxed medical status report which simply stated Zielinske could not work with 
"floor wax or strippers or other chemical respiratory 
irritants."

 

[¶16] Alternative job 
positions were discussed, but the only immediate vacancy was in the kitchen, 
again involving contact with cleaning products. Tyser informed Zielinske that 
there may be an aide position open in several weeks, and that she also had the 
option of resigning. Zielinske returned later that day and submitted her 
resignation.

 

[¶17] On August 9, 1994, 
Zielinske completed a report of injury, identifying the date of her injury as 
June 7, 1994. The School District objected, and on September 19, 1994, the 
Division issued a final determination denying benefits. A contested case hearing 
was held on September 15, 1995. On August 30, 1996, the hearing examiner issued 
the order denying benefits, finding that Zielinske had not timely filed; she had 
failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that 
her claim should be denied; and she had forfeited her benefits by engaging in 
unsanitary or injurious practice. Zielinske petitioned for review to the 
district court, and upon the motion of the parties, the case was certified for 
our review pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

                                      
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶18] The dispositive issues 
in this case are whether the hearing examiner correctly determined that 
Zielinske untimely reported her injury; and, if so, whether she rebutted the 
presumption that her claim should, therefore, be denied. A duty to report an 
injury commences when the employee knows "that he has suffered an injury which 
can result in, or is likely to cause, a compensable disability * * *." Curnow v. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 899 P.2d 875, 878 (Wyo. 1995) 
(emphasis added).  The time at which 
the employee gains this knowledge is a question of fact. Id. Likewise, whether a 
claimant has clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption that the employer 
or the Division is prejudiced by late reporting is a factual determination. 
Id.

 

[¶19] We defer to the 
hearing examiner's factual findings if they are supported by substantial 
evidence in light of the entire record.  
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Harris, 931 P.2d 255, 
258 (Wyo. 1997); City of Casper v. Haines, 886 P.2d 585, 587 (Wyo. 1994). 
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept 
as sufficient to support the hearing examiner's conclusions. Harris, 931 P.2d  at 
258 (quoting Stuckey v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 1995)); State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. 
v. Hollister, 794 P.2d 886, 891 (Wyo. 1990) (quoting Hohnholt v. Basin Electric 
Power Co-op., 784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo. 1989)). We will not substitute our 
judgment for that of the agency and will examine only the evidence which favors 
the prevailing party while omitting consideration of any conflicting 
evidence.  Wyoming Steel & Fab, 
Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 876 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Sinclair Trucking v. 
Bailey, 848 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Wyo. 1993)).

 

                                          
IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶20] Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-502, which governed the timely reporting of Zielinske's work-related 
injury, provided, in relevant part:

 

           

 

(a) As soon as is practical but not later than 
seventy-two (72) hours after the general nature of the injury became apparent, 
an injured employee shall report the occurrence and general nature of the 
accident to the employer and within ten (10) days after the injury became 
apparent, file the report in the office of the clerk of court of the county in 
which the accident occurred. * * *

 

          
* * *

 

(c) Failure of the injured employee * * * to report 
the accident to the employer and to file the report with the clerk of court in 
accordance with subsection (a) of this section is a presumption that the claim 
shall be denied. The presumption may be rebutted if the employee establishes by 
clear and convincing evidence a lack of prejudice to the employer or division in 
investigating the accident and in monitoring medical 
treatment.

 

[¶21] We have held that an 
injury becomes compensable for purposes of Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-502 when it is 
properly diagnosed.  Curnow, 899 P.2d  at 877; Neal v. Caballo Rojo, Inc., 899 P.2d 56, 61 (Wyo. 1995). Zielinske 
contends she timely reported her injury because her condition was not "properly 
diagnosed" until she received the final diagnosis on August 4, 1994. "[W]hen a 
correct diagnosis and prognosis of present or likely future disability is 
communicated to the claimant, the injury is discovered, it is compensable, and 
the statute of limitations begins to run." Haines, 886 P.2d  at 589 (emphasis 
added). The facts in Curnow, which are 
very similar to the facts in this case, demonstrate that the words "properly 
diagnosed" do not necessarily mean a "final" diagnosis.

 

[¶22] In Curnow, the 
claimant began experiencing difficulty with his wrists in December 1992. The 
claimant consulted a physician on July 6, 1993, reporting his problem as "carpal 
tunnel," and indicating it was work-related. The physician prescribed medication 
and arranged for further testing. Curnow, 899 P.2d  at 876. Upholding the hearing 
examiner's conclusion that claimant's report of injury in September 1993 was 
untimely, we stated: "We are satisfied [the claimant] knew he had suffered a 
compensable injury at least on July 6, 1993, after his visit with the orthopedic 
physician." Id. at 878. Thus, under the totality of the facts in Curnow, the 
need for further testing did not preclude a finding that the claimant had 
knowledge sufficient to trigger the statutory reporting 
requirements.

 

[¶23] Here, Zielinske began 
to suspect that her condition may be related to her work as early as June 1993. 
In June 1994, Zielinske made an appointment, brought a list of the cleaning 
materials used in her work, and informed Dr. Schumann she believed her problem 
may be work-related. She was given work restrictions to which her employer fully 
acquiesced. Subsequently, on June 27, 1994, Dr. Merchant informed her that, 
while not confirmed, it was likely the chemicals she was working with were 
acting as respiratory irritants and exacerbating her asthma. Zielinske then 
proceeded with a treatment specifically designed to establish the connection 
between her work and her injury. This undisputed evidence is sufficient to 
support the hearing examiner's conclusion that Zielinske had knowledge, on June 
27, 1994, that her respiratory problems were a condition which could result in, 
or was likely to cause, a compensable injury.

 

[¶24] In an alternative 
argument, Zielinske alleges that the time in which she was required to report 
her injury to the Division was tolled when the School District failed to file 
its own injury report after receiving her doctor's work restrictions on June 7, 
1994. This issue was not raised below or in Zielinske's initial brief on appeal. 
Because this is not a jurisdictional or fundamental matter, we decline to 
consider it at this time. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521, 526 (Wyo. 
1994).

 

[¶25] Zielinske next 
contends that, even if her report was not timely, there is no evidence which 
establishes prejudice to her employer or the Division. Initially, we note that 
neither the employer nor the Division were required to show prejudice. The 
legislature squarely placed the burden on the claimant to show by clear and 
convincing evidence that no prejudice occurred. In any event, despite the School 
District's attempt to comply with the work restrictions imposed by Dr. Schumann, 
the hearing examiner found that Zielinske gave the School District no warning of 
her voluntary re-exposure to the restricted products, or the existence of 
alternatives to such re-exposure. In addition, Zielinske did not notify her 
supervisors of the purpose of her daily peak flow monitoring activities, and 
therefore afforded them no opportunity to ensure the reliability of that data. 
The Division also presented testimony which established that medically trained 
personnel routinely review the medical treatment provided to a claimant, but in 
this case the opportunity to review or monitor the treatment was prevented by 
Zielinske's actions.

 

[¶26] We agree with the 
hearing examiner's conclusion that "in this case, there is no evidence put forth 
by the Claimant to show a lack of prejudice to either the school district or the 
Division." Thus, the hearing examiner did not err in concluding that Zielinske 
failed to rebut the statutory presumption that her claim should be 
denied.

 

                                          
V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶27] Zielinske's decision 
to commence medical treatment designed to verify the connection between her 
illness and her job is a sufficient factual basis to support the hearing 
examiner's conclusion that Zielinske was required to report her injury within 
ten days after June 27, 1994. Similarly, the hearing examiner did not err in 
finding that Zielinske's delay in reporting prevented the review or monitoring 
of her re-exposure to previously restricted chemicals. The order denying 
benefits is affirmed.