Title: Claim of Mitchell

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Claim of Mitchell1994 WY 66876 P.2d 984Case Number: 93-194Decided: 06/15/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
In 
the Matter of the Worker's Compensation CLAIM OF James P. 
MITCHELL:

 L & H WELDING AND MACHINE 
COMPANY,

Appellant 
(Employer-Defendant),

v.

STATE 
of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming WORKER'S COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,

Appellee 
(Petitioner, Objector-Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Campbell County, Terrence L. O'Brien, 
J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

J. 
Stan Wolfe and C. John Cotton, Gillette.

Representing 
Appellee:

Joseph 
B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Kenneth E. Spurrier, 
Asst. Atty. Gen., and M. Greg Carlson, Sp. Asst. Atty. 
Gen.

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

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1]      An employer 
brings this action challenging the district court's determination that an 
employee's worker's compensation benefits were chargeable to the employer rather 
than to the industry class as a whole.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The employer, L 
& H Welding and Machine Company (L & H Welding), raises two 
issues:

A. 
The District Court erred in concluding that W.S. Section 27-14-603(e) requires a 
previous claim for which benefits were previously paid.

B. 
The District Court erred in concluding that there was no evidence in the record 
that Employee/Claimant had successive compensable injuries requiring 
distribution of benefit charges pursuant to W.S. Section 
27-14-603(e).

[¶4]      The State, 
through the Worker's Compensation Division (Division), raises an additional 
issue:

Whether 
the hearing officer has authority pursuant to W.S. § 27-14-603(e) to order the 
division to charge benefits to an industrial class as a whole rather than a 
single employe[r]?

FACTS

[¶5]      This case began 
when James Mitchell, an L & H employee, filed a worker's compensation claim 
for an injury to his back. L & H Welding and the Division objected to the 
claim; and on February 17, 1993, a hearing was held in front of a hearing 
examiner (examiner). On March 22, 1993, the examiner, in findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, determined that Mitchell was entitled to an award for 
temporary total disability. This determination was not challenged by the parties 
and is not at issue in this case. The examiner also found that Mitchell had 
sustained a series of compensable injuries for which a single employer could not 
be identified as responsible. The examiner then ordered the benefits charged to 
L & H Welding's general industrial classification pursuant to W.S. 
27-14-603(e) (1991).

[¶6]      The Division 
appealed that decision to the district court, which reversed the examiner's 
decision to charge the benefits to the industrial class as a whole. The district 
court decided, as a matter of law, that a claimant had to have made previous 
claims and been paid benefits for the particular injury in order for benefits to 
be socialized under W.S. 27-14-603(e). Having found no evidence in the record 
that Mitchell had made any previous claims or had benefits paid for a lower back 
injury under worker's compensation, the district court concluded that W.S. 
27-14-603(e) did not apply and the benefits should be charged solely to L & 
H Welding. L & H has appealed that decision to this 
court.

[¶7]      Since the facts 
pertaining to Mitchell's injury are relevant to the determination of the issues 
presented, we recite those facts as found by the examiner:

3. 
That between 1975 and 1991, [Mitchell] worked continuously in and around the 
oilfields as a roughneck, driller, motorman, tool pusher, or mechanic's helper. 
All of these employments involved heavy labor.

4. 
That prior to his employment with L & H Welding and Machine Company 
[Mitchell] had filed one previous Worker's Compensation claim * * * for an 
injury to his hand * * *.

5. 
That as early as October of 1988, [Mitchell] had consulted a chiropractor 
complaining of "backaches" and "lower back pain," which he described as having 
persisted "since high school." * * *

6. 
That [Mitchell] while in high school, suffered a motorcycle accident in which he 
suffered a broken left femur which resulted in shortening of his left 
leg.

7. 
That while employed by L & H * * * [Mitchell] was involved in a truck 
accident on January 24, 1992 in Johnson County, Wyoming, wherein [Mitchell] was 
injured around his waist and shoulder areas and on the backs of his legs in the 
form of bruising which resulted in soreness and stiffness, but which [he] did 
not feel at the time justified medical treatment or Report of an 
Injury.

8. 
That on March 12, 1992 [Mitchell] slipped and fell while exiting a car causing 
pain to the lower back area for which [he] sought treatment from [a 
chiropractor] * * *.

9. 
That at the time of the slip and fall on March 12, 1992, [the chiropractor] took 
x-rays of [Mitchell's] spine which showed some degenerative changes but did not 
reveal evidence of a herniated disc.

10. 
That on May 19, 1992, [Mitchell] suffered an ankle injury at his place of 
employment while loading large rollers on the back of a pickup truck at which 
time, to avoid a roller that was falling over, [Mitchell] jumped out of the bed 
of the pickup and caught his right foot between the slats of a pallet on the 
floor beside the pickup causing injury to his ankle.

11. 
That [Mitchell] at the time that he twisted his ankle after stepping through the 
pallet fell backwards and was struck in the lower back by a piece of equipment 
on the floor of the shop.

* 
* * * * *

13. 
That as a result of the ankle injury, [Mitchell] filed a Worker's Compensation 
claim and Employee's Report of Injury * * *.

14. 
That as a result of his ankle injury, [Mitchell] consulted with Dr. Garry G. 
Becker, a Family Practice Physician in Gillette * * *.

15. 
That on June 26, 1992, [Mitchell] returned to work and after a matter of two or 
three days began to experience additional problems consisting of hip and leg 
pain.

16. 
That upon his return to work [Mitchell] resumed manual labor, including 
shoveling the yard area of the Employer.

17. 
That [Mitchell] encountered severe discomfort, was unable to walk upright, was 
severely hindered in his activities at work and began to suffer loss of 
sensation or numbness in the left leg and foot.

* 
* * * * *

20. 
That on July 16, 1992 [Mitchell] consulted with Dr. Garry Becker concerning the 
severe pain in his left posterior hip and thighs and Dr. Becker diagnosed a 
possible herniated disc.

21. 
That [Mitchell] was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Jerome Behrens * * * 
[who] examined [Mitchell] and concluded a probable herniated nucleus polposus or 
herniated disc.

22. 
That neither Dr. Becker nor Dr. Behrens could testify as to what was the 
probable cause of the herniated disc.

23. 
That Dr. Becker and Dr. Behrens and [a chiropractor] testified there was 
evidence of degenerative changes to [Mitchell's] spine but none concluded or 
opined that such degenerative changes could be the cause of a herniated disc and 
there was no other medical or other competent testimony to show the degenerative 
changes caused the symptoms experienced by [Mitchell].

24. 
That there was no expert medical testimony submitted that would indicate the 
probable cause of [Mitchell's] herniated disc was the injury suffered to his 
left leg in high school or the slip and fall occurring on March 12, 
1992.

* 
* * * * *

27. 
That [Mitchell] was examined by Dr. Scott Nickerson on August 28, 1992 at which 
time he diagnosed a probable herniated lumbar disc * * *.

28. 
That on September 2, 1992 a CT scan of the lumbosacral spine was conducted * * * 
which revealed a disc herniation with a probable free 
fragment.

29. 
That on September 17, 1992, Dr. Scott Nickerson performed surgery on [Mitchell] 
consisting of a hemilaminotomy and discectomy at which time a large extruded 
fragment was found and removed.

30. 
That following the surgery [Mitchell] had immediate and marked recovery and 
return of feeling to the left hip and leg. 

31. 
That Dr. Scott Nickerson testified that the probable cause of [Mitchell's] 
herniated disc was the truck accident which occurred on January 24, 1992 and 
significant aggravation of the same when [Mitchell] jumped from the truck at 
work and injured his ankle on May 19, 1992.

32. 
That Dr. Scott Nickerson further testified that [Mitchell's] work activities 
included heavy lifting and manual labor such as shoveling which also could have 
aggravated his back injury.

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶8]      We review agency 
determinations of fact as follows:

We 
examine the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to 
support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency, and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of 
the agency. It is more than a scintilla of evidence.

Hohnholt 
v. Basin Elec. Power Co-op, 
784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo. 1989) (quoting Trout v. Wyoming Oil & Gas 
Conservation Comm'n, 721 P.2d 1047, 1050 (Wyo. 1986)); see also State ex 
rel. Worker's Compensation Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095, 1098 (Wyo. 1992). 
Factual findings made by a hearing officer regarding the historical actions of 
the parties are accorded due deference. Aanenson v. State ex rel. Worker's 
Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1080 (Wyo. 1992).

[¶9]      Agency 
conclusions of law are affirmed only if they are in accordance with law. 
Aanenson, at 1079. The application of a statute to the historical facts 
is a question of law. Id., at 1080. We give no special deference to the 
district court's decision. Barcon, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 845 P.2d 373, 376 (Wyo. 1992).

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   We begin with the statute in 
question, W.S. 27-14-603(e) (1991), which provides:

Notwithstanding 
W.S. 27-14-201, in those proceedings in which the entitlement of a worker to 
benefits for successive compensable injuries is established but no single 
employer can be determined to be chargeable for the injuries, the division shall 
distribute the benefit charge to employers within the general industrial 
classification in which the employee was engaged at the time his most recent 
claim arose.

The 
statute unambiguously requires two things before benefits can be charged to an 
industrial classification. First, the employee must have suffered successive 
compensable injuries. Second, no single employer can be identified as chargeable 
for the injuries.

[¶11]   The district court concluded that § 
603(e) "plainly requires a previous compensable injury for which a claim was 
made and benefits were paid." L & H Welding argues that the district court 
erred in equating "successive compensable injuries" with "previous claims" and 
"previous benefits paid." L & H Welding contends that there are situations 
where an employee might not discover an injury, which occurred while working for 
one employer, until after another similar injury occurs, while he was working 
for a second employer. L & H points out that both injuries might be 
compensable injuries and therefore covered under § 603(e).

[¶12]   We agree with the employer. We 
think the district court has read the statute too narrowly. While the fact that 
an employee has filed previous claims and been paid benefits is evidence of 
successive compensable injuries, there may be other ways to prove an employee 
has suffered those injuries. The statute does not delineate any methods of 
proof; and we will not read any into it, for there may be situations in which a 
party can prove successive compensable injuries by different means. The question 
of whether an employee has suffered successive compensable injuries should be 
determined on the facts of each case.

[¶13]   L & H Welding argues that there 
was substantial evidence from which Mitchell could be found to have suffered 
successive compensable injuries. L & H Welding points to the following 
evidence as support: That Mitchell had engaged in 16 years of heavy lifting; 
that he suffered from 80% decrease in size of his disc from degeneration; that 
he injured his back carrying sand in 1991; that he hurt back while working for a 
gold mine in 1991; the 1992 truck accident; the May 1992 injury when he jumped 
from the pickup; and the problems with his back he encountered doing shovel work 
in June of 1992. These incidents alone were not sufficient to prove successive 
compensable injuries. The evidence here establishes that Mitchell suffered a 
single compensable injury for which L & H Welding is 
chargeable.

[¶14]   The medical evidence in the record 
overwhelmingly supports a finding that Mitchell's injury was the result of the 
January 1992 truck accident which occurred during the course of his employment 
with L & H Welding. Dr. Nickerson, who performed the surgery on Mitchell's 
back, testified as follows:

A: 
I believe that Mr. Mitchell sustained a work-related lumbar disc herniation in 
the January 24, 1992 accident.

I 
believe that he had significant aggravation of that injury in July with the 
work-related fall from the bed of a pickup truck.

* 
* * * * *

Q: 
All right. And it might also be described as mild degenerative disc space 
narrowing?

A: 
Yes.

Q: 
But would such a finding explain the types of problems that Mr. Mitchell was 
having?

A: 
No.

* 
* * * * *

Q: 
All right. But the degenerative changes that would have been noted would not be 
sufficient to require the treatment and, specifically, the 
surgery?

A: 
In no way.

Not 
one of the other doctors who testified could form an opinion as to the cause of 
the herniated disc. Dr. Becker testified as follows:

Q: 
Okay. So your analysis at this point was severe low back pain, and you suspected 
a herniated disc?

A: 
That's correct.

* 
* * * * *

Q: 
Do you have any specialties or practice area emphases?

A: 
Family practice.

Q: 
And so when you have a problem like this pertaining to back injuries or spinal 
problems or herniated discs, for instance, you refer those to a 
specialist?

A: 
That's correct.

* 
* * * * *

Q: 
Doctor, based upon the history and the examination of Mr. Mitchell in relation 
to the problems he was having in the left posterior thigh and hip and his 
low[er] back, are you able to form an opinion as to how those problems were 
created or arose?

A: 
No, I'm not.

Q: 
And why is that?

A: 
Because I don't have the information to make that decision or that 
diagnosis.

The 
third doctor who testified, Dr. Behrens, concluded:

The 
only thing that I can render an opinion on is whether the back injury was caused 
by the ankle sprain and the fact that he was walking on a crutch, and my answer 
to that is, no. I don't think that is likely.

[¶15]   Mitchell's compensable injury was 
the herniated disc. The only evidence in the record relating to the cause of the 
injury is Dr. Nickerson's opinion that it was the result of the January 1992 
truck accident. None of the other doctors testified to other compensable 
injuries or to the cause of Mitchell's present injury. The examiner recognized 
this in numbers 23 and 31 of his findings of fact.

[¶16]   Furthermore, there is no evidence 
in the record that Mitchell's heavy labor work history or his disc degeneration 
was the cause of the injury. In fact, Dr. Nickerson specifically testified that 
"[i]n no way" would the disc degeneration require the treatment or surgery that 
Mitchell underwent. The other doctors could not even form an opinion on the 
subject. The examiner's decision to socialize the benefits under 27-14-603(e) 
was not supported by substantial evidence, and L & H Welding should have 
been charged with the benefits.

[¶17]   Finally, the State has raised the 
question of whether an examiner has the authority to authorize socialization 
pursuant to 27-14-603(e). Since we conclude that the benefits should have been 
charged to L & H Welding, we need not reach this 
issue.

CONCLUSION

[¶18]   Substantial evidence supports a 
conclusion that Mitchell suffered a single compensable injury for which L & 
H Welding was chargeable. The examiner's decision to socialize the benefits 
pursuant to W.S. 27-14-603(e) was not supported by substantial evidence. 
Therefore, the decision of the district court is affirmed.