Title: Borelson v. Holiday Inn

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Borelson v. Holiday Inn1996 WY 21911 P.2d 426Case Number: 95-70Decided: 02/20/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming

In the Matter of the Workers' Compensation Claim of: 
TODD L. BORELSON,  

Appellant (Employee-Claimant),

 

v. 

 

HOLIDAY INN,  

Appellee (Employer-Objector), 

 

v. 

 

STATE of WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION,  

Appellee (Objector-Defendant).

 

Wyo.R.App.P 12.09(b) Certification from the District 
Court of Sheridan County, The 
Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge.

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Dan Davis, 
Gillette.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

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

 

Before THOMAS, MACY, 
TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ., and GRANT, District Judge.

GRANT, District 
Judge. 

[¶1]      A hearing 
examiner denied Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits because he 
was unable to rebut the statutory presumption that the claim be denied due to 
late filing. Concluding that there is evidence in the record to support the 
hearing examiner's findings and no error in his conclusions, we affirm the 
decision.

 

[¶2]      Appellant filed a 
claim on June 14, 1994, for payment of medical expenses for removal of a piece 
of meat from his esophagus which he said became lodged there on April 26, 1994, 
when at work he ate a left-over banquet meal given to him by the cook. In 
conflict with Appellant's testimony was that of the cook in which he testified 
he did not remember doing so. Others testified that they were present at the 
time of the alleged incident and saw no indication that it occurred. Others said 
they remembered no such incident.

 

[¶3]      WYO. STAT. § 
27-14-502 (1991) requires that a claimant report an injury to the employer 
within seventy-two hours and file a report of the injury with the clerk of the 
district court within ten days, failing which there is a presumption that the 
claim will be denied. The presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing 
evidence that the employer is not prejudiced by the delay. WYO. STAT. § 
27-14-502(c) (1991). The evidence was in conflict as to whether the incident 
occurred as described by Appellant. Certainly, it did not meet the standard of 
clear and convincing evidence necessary to rebut the statutory 
presumption.

 

[¶4]      The hearing 
examiner's conclusion that the late filing and the resultant ambiguity in the 
evidence prejudiced the employer is supported by the record and is a proper 
application of the cited statute. Appellant and the cook gave conflicting 
testimony and others who might have provided corroboration were unable to 
remember. It is a reasonable inference that a timely report would have enabled 
the employer to interview the employees at a time much closer to the incident 
and thus obtain more reliable information. There was not clear and convincing 
evidence to the contrary.

 

[¶5]      We affirm.