Title: Curnow v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Curnow v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1995 WY 115899 P.2d 875Case Number: 94-189Decided: 07/21/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
John 
CURNOW, 

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v. 

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

 Appellee (Respondent). 

Appeal 
from District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

Donald 
L. Painter, Casper, for appellant.

W. 
Thomas Sullins, II, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Brown & Drew, Casper, for 
appellee.

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

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      The question in 
this case is whether John Curnow (Curnow) met his statutorily imposed duty of 
establishing "by clear and convincing evidence a lack of prejudice to the 
employer or division in investigating the accident and in monitoring medical 
treatment." WYO. STAT. § 27-14-502(c) (1991). The statute requires an employee 
to report an injury to his employer within seventy-two hours after the general 
nature of the injury becomes apparent and, within ten days, file the report in 
the office of the clerk of court. The hearing examiner found Curnow had failed 
to meet the statutory reporting requirements which led to "a presumption that 
the claim shall be denied." WYO. STAT. § 27-14-502(c). The hearing examiner also 
found Curnow had overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence 
insofar as demonstrating there was a lack of prejudice in investigating the 
accident, but Curnow had failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice in monitoring 
medical treatment. Curnow sought review in the district court by a Petition for 
Review, and the district court ruled the decision of the hearing examiner should 
be affirmed since it was sustained by substantial evidence. We are satisfied the 
decision of the hearing examiner is supported by substantial evidence, and the 
Order of Affirmance entered in the district court is 
affirmed.

[¶2]      In his 
Appellant's Brief, Curnow presents this statement of the 
issues:

1. 
Whether Employee-Claimant failed to comply with the injury reporting provisions 
of § 27-14-502 W.S. 1977.

2. 
If the foregoing issue be decided in the negative, whether Employee-Claimant's 
failure to so comply is excused by a lack of prejudice to the employer's rights 
of investigation and monitoring medical care.

In 
the Brief of Appellee State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division, the single issue is stated as follows:

Whether 
substantial evidence exists to support the denial of Appellant-Employee's claims 
for worker's compensation benefits based upon the failure of Appellant-Employee 
to report the occurrence and general nature of his alleged job-related injury in 
accord with the requirements of W.S. § 27-14-502.

[¶3]      Curnow went to 
work for WOTCO, Inc. (WOTCO) in 1990. In his employment at WOTCO, his primary 
duties were working as a grinder. He used a twelve-inch grinder weighing ten to 
fifteen pounds, which he had to hold with both hands in front of him or out to 
his side in order to do his work. His job was to grind off excess weld and other 
metal obtrusions from parts being built. He also was assigned other duties from 
time to time.

[¶4]      Curnow first 
began experiencing difficulty with his wrists in December of 1992. These 
problems continued, and he went to see an orthopedic physician on July 6, 1993, 
at which time Curnow identified the date of his injury as "12-1-92." Curnow 
described his injury as "carpal tunnel" and indicated it was work related. 
According to the physician's notes, Curnow reported problems relating to both 
hands, including numbness and tingling in his hands, but more on the dorsum than 
the volar aspect. The physician prescribed anti-inflammatory medication and 
advised Curnow to return in five weeks for re-evaluation. Subsequently, in 
August, two electronic studies indicated mild to moderate carpel tunnel 
syndrome. Curnow was placed upon prescribed medication and given a prescription 
for braces to use in his work.

[¶5]      Curnow did not 
report this injury to his employer until September 14, 1993 and, on September 
24, 1993, Curnow filed the Report of Occupational Injury or Disease with the 
Clerk of the District Court in Natrona County. In that report, Curnow identified 
the date of his injury as December of 1992. After that, claims for medical and 
other health-related expenses were presented for payment under the Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Act (WYO. STAT. §§ 27-14-101 to -805 (1991 & Supp. 
1994)). WOTCO objected to the award of benefits, questioning whether Curnow's 
symptoms were work related. Ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Division 
(Division) joined in the objection to the award of benefits, and a letter was 
directed to Curnow which noted that WOTCO had expressed concerns as to why 
Curnow began seeing the health care provider in July of 1993, but failed to 
inform the employer until approximately three months later. The Division denied 
the award of benefits, to which Curnow objected, and a contested case hearing 
was held.

[¶6]      The hearing 
examiner found Curnow suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome which most likely was 
work related and arose out of his employment with WOTCO. The hearing examiner 
also found the general nature of the injury at issue was apparent to Curnow, and 
he was aware, on July 6, 1993, that the injury was related to his employment. 
The hearing examiner then found that Curnow had reported the injury to his 
employer on September 14, 1993 and had filed the requisite workers' compensation 
report on September 24, 1993. This was followed by a finding that he had not 
reported the occurrence and general nature of the accident or injury to his 
employer within seventy-two hours after it became apparent, and he had failed to 
file a report in the office of the clerk of court within ten days after the 
injury became apparent.

[¶7]      The specific 
finding which captures the issue in this case was that WOTCO and the Division 
were not prejudiced in their ability to investigate the accident and injury as a 
result of the failure of Curnow to make a timely report, but they were 
prejudiced in their ability to monitor the medical treatment being received by 
Curnow. In his conclusions of law, the hearing examiner noted the failure to 
report resulted in the presumption that the claim should be denied, but he 
concluded Curnow had established by clear and convincing evidence a lack of 
prejudice with respect to investigation of the accident and injury. He then 
concluded Curnow had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence a lack 
of prejudice to the employer and the Division in monitoring medical treatment, 
and the presumption that the claim should be denied had not been 
overcome.

[¶8]      Curnow, by a 
Petition for Review sought and obtained judicial review in the district court of 
the Seventh Judicial District in and for Natrona County. The district court, in 
a decision letter which was followed by an Order of Affirmance, ruled there was 
substantial evidence to support the findings, conclusions, and order of the 
hearing examiner and the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings was 
affirmed. Curnow has appealed from the Order of 
Affirmance.

[¶9]      The primary 
substantive rules in this case are found in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-502 which 
provides, in pertinent 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, any dependent or personal representative 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.

While 
Curnow argues his claims may have been timely under the statute, we have held 
the term "injury" in the statute alludes to a compensable injury. Big Horn Coal 
Co. v. Wartensleben, 502 P.2d 187 (Wyo. 1972). Our rule is that the injury 
becomes compensable when it is properly diagnosed. Little America Refining Co. 
v. Witt, 854 P.2d 51 (Wyo. 1993). In W.E. Bill Sauer's Drilling Co. v. Gendron, 
720 P.2d 909 (Wyo. 1986), we quoted from Big Horn Coal Co. the proposition that 
the knowledge of an employee that he has suffered an injury which can result in, 
or is likely to cause, a compensable disability is a factual determination for 
the finder of fact. We are satisfied Curnow knew he had suffered a compensable 
injury at least on July 6, 1993, after his visit with the orthopedic physician. 
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the 
hearing examiner that the compensable injury was known at that time, and 
Curnow's filings were not timely.

[¶10]   The hearing examiner then properly 
invoked the presumption found in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-502(c) and turned his 
attention to the sufficiency of evidence in the record to rebut that 
presumption. The hearing examiner concluded that the record, by clear and 
convincing evidence, established a lack of prejudice to the employer or Division 
in investigating the accident. As we understand the record leading to that 
conclusion, it simply establishes that this was a progressive injury occurring 
over a period of time, and there was no disadvantage to the employer or the 
division with respect to an investigation.

[¶11]   The critical aspect of the case was 
then reached. The hearing examiner found Curnow had not established by clear and 
convincing evidence a lack of prejudice to the employer or the Division in 
monitoring medical treatment. The Division, through the assistant human 
resources manager at WOTCO, established WOTCO had a policy of requiring the 
report of any accident or injury during the shift in which it occurred. It was 
WOTCO's policy to follow up by investigating accidents or causes of difficulty. 
A part of the job of the assistant human resources manager was to determine what 
the problem was and work with an employee and a doctor to find out what could be 
done to lessen the problem. WOTCO also had a policy of monitoring health care 
treatment. In this instance, WOTCO, because of the tardy reporting, was not 
aware medication was being prescribed. It did not know braces had been 
prescribed for Curnow, and it had no opportunity to monitor the decision of 
Curnow not to use braces. The assistant human resources manager testified there 
were several different styles of braces which potentially would have been useful 
to Curnow.

[¶12]   It is clear WOTCO had an 
affirmative policy of monitoring the health care of its employees in situations 
such as this and assisting in whatever ways were possible to permit an 
adjustment to the working conditions. That monitoring, obviously, was more 
proactive than simply knowing what the health care provider was doing. It also 
extended to affirmative assistance in working with the problem. This information 
in the record provided substantial evidence before the hearing examiner of 
prejudice to the employer and to the Division, through the employer, in 
monitoring Curnow's medical treatment. Curnow offered nothing in the record to 
counteract this evidence, and we agree with the district court that substantial 
evidence supports the determination by the hearing examiner that Curnow did not 
establish "by clear and convincing evidence a lack of prejudice to the employer 
or division * * * in monitoring medical treatment."

[¶13]   We are satisfied that, under our 
applicable rule with respect to judicial review of agency action, there is 
substantial evidence to support the determination of the hearing examiner in the 
critical respects. The requirements of WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1990) have been 
satisfied. Hepp v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076 (Wyo. 1994); State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1992). We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency 
in view of the presence of substantial evidence. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. 
v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873 (Wyo. 1994); Sinclair Trucking v. Bailey, 848 P.2d 1349 
(Wyo. 1993). We do not find in the record, or in Curnow's brief, any suggestion 
of arbitrary or capricious treatment of Curnow's case. There was no abuse of 
discretion nor any indication that the decision was otherwise not in accordance 
with law.

[¶14]   The Order of Affirmance entered in 
the district court, which approved the Order Denying Benefits by the hearing 
examiner, is affirmed.