Title: ABEYTA v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ABEYTA v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2004 WY 5088 P.3d 1072Case Number: 03-175Decided: 05/05/2004
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 

                                                                                                            

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF:

 

GILBERT 
A. ABEYTA, AN EMPLOYEE

OF 
DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION,

 

Appellant

(Claimant),

 

v.

                                                                                                

STATE 
OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee

(Respondent).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Edward Grant, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Bert T. Ahlstrom, Jr., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristi M. 
Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General. 

 

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

 

 

 

KITE, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      After a work 
related injury, Gilbert A. Abeyta (Abeyta) applied for and received permanent 
partial disability benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-101, et seq.  Mr. 
Abeyta then applied for a permanent partial disability award based on loss of 
earning capacity.  The Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Division (Division) denied Mr. Abeyta's claim, finding he 
failed to prove he "actively sought suitable work" within the meaning of Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(iii) (LexisNexis 2003).  Mr. Abeyta objected, a hearing was held 
and the hearing examiner denied benefits on the same ground.  Mr. Abeyta appealed to the district 
court, which affirmed the denial of benefits.  In his appeal to this Court, we also 
affirm.

 

 
ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Mr. Abeyta 
presents the following issue:

 

Whether the 
order of the hearing examiner denying permanent partial disability benefits to 
appellant upon the ground that he failed to comply with the work search 
requirements of the law, constituted an abuse of discretion, and/or was 
arbitrary or capricious, under the facts and circumstances of this 
case.

 

[¶3]      The Division 
re-states the issue as follows:

 

Whether the 
Hearing Examiner's finding that Appellant failed to prove he actively sought 
suitable work, considering his health, education, training and experience as 
required by W.S. § 27-14-405(h)(iii) was supported by substantial 
evidence.

 

 

FACTS

                        

[¶4]      On May 7, 2001, 
Mr. Abeyta fell at work and injured his left wrist.  He filed a report of injury with the 
Division and received temporary total disability benefits.  He then applied for permanent partial 
disability benefits, received a nine percent whole body impairment rating by the 
evaluating physician and was awarded permanent partial impairment benefits.  On April 26, 2002, Mr. Abeyta applied 
for a permanent partial disability award based upon a loss of earning 
capacity.  Several weeks later, he 
submitted a work search record showing that between May 6 and 10, 2002, he 
contacted three employers to inquire about work but did not submit 
applications.  Based upon the work 
search record, the Division concluded Mr. Abeyta was not actively seeking work 
as required and was not eligible for a permanent partial disability award.  The Division issued a final 
determination denying Mr. Abeyta's application.  Mr. Abeyta objected to the determination 
and a contested case hearing was held.  

 

[¶5]      At the time of 
the hearing, Mr. Abeyta was 58 years old, had worked as a concrete finisher for 
40 years and had an 8th grade education.  He claimed at the hearing that he did 
everything he was told to do in carrying out his job search and, given his 
limited education and lack of experience with the worker's compensation system, 
he should not be penalized if his efforts fell short of what was required.  The hearing examiner 
concluded:

 

[Mr.] 
Abeyta's testimony that he did not understand what was required of him in terms 
of a work search lacked credibility. [Mr.] Abeyta has not proven, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that he engaged in a systematic and sustained 
effort to obtain work.

 

The 
hearing examiner upheld the denial of Mr. Abeyta's claim for a permanent partial 
disability award.

            

 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[T]he 
substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from 
Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act contested case proceedings when factual 
findings are involved and both parties submit evidence. . . .  We afford respect and deference to a 
hearing examiner's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial 
evidence. Our task is to examine the entire record to determine whether 
substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's findings. We will not 
substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial 
evidence supports his decision. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which 
a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. A hearing 
examiner's conclusions of law are afforded no special deference and will be 
affirmed only if truly in accord with law.

 

Salas 
v. General 
Chemical, 2003 WY 79, ¶ 9, 71 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo. 2003) (citations 
omitted).  Appeals from contested 
case hearings presenting questions of law are reviewed de novo.  Bruns v. TW Services, Inc., 2001 
WY 127, ¶ 14, 36 P.3d 608, ¶ 14 (Wyo. 2001).  A claimant for worker's compensation 
benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a 
preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.  Salas, ¶ 9.

 

Even 
when the factual findings are found to be sufficient under the substantial 
evidence test, . . . this court may be required to apply the arbitrary and 
capricious standard as a "safety net" to catch other agency action which 
prejudiced a party's substantial right to the administrative proceeding or which 
might be contrary to the other WAPA review standards.   

 

State 
ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Legarda, 
2003 WY 130, ¶ 10, 77 P.3d 708, ¶ 10 (Wyo. 2003) citing Bryant v. 
State ex rel. Department of Transportation, 2002 WY 140, ¶¶ 9-11, 55 P.3d 4, 
¶¶ 9-11 (Wyo. 2002) (citations omitted.) 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶6]      Mr. Abeyta sought 
a permanent partial disability award pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h) 
(LEXIS 2000), which provided as follows:

 

  (h) An injured employee awarded 
permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a permanent disability award 
subject to the following terms and conditions:

      (i) The injured 
employee is because of the injury, unable to return to employment at a wage that 
is at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the monthly gross earnings the employee 
was earning at the time of injury;

       (ii) An application for 
permanent partial disability is filed not before three (3) months after the date 
of ascertainable loss or three (3) months before the last scheduled impairment 
payment, whichever occurs later, but in no event later than one (1) year 
following the later date; and

     (iii) The employee has actively 
sought suitable work, considering the employee's health, education, training and 
experience.

 

Mr. 
Abeyta claims his caseworker gave him no guidance and so he was not clear what 
was expected of him in terms of the subsection (h)(iii) requirement that he 
actively seek suitable work in light of his health, education, training and 
experience.  He claims he "was left 
to flounder about and make his best guess as to what was expected of him."  He claims he was not advised of the 
definition of "actively seeking work" contained in the applicable rule, which 
stated:

 

(x)        
Actively Seeking Work.  
For purposes of benefit eligibility, an individual is actively seeking 
work if they:

 

(i)  Have engaged in a systematic and 
sustained effort to obtain work;

(ii) 
Registers for work and continues to report to a department office in effort to 
obtain suitable employment;

(iii) 
Are available for suitable employment;

(iv)  Furnishes the department with tangible 
evidence of their effort; or

(v)  Have contacted their employer from the 
time of injury to inquire if they have work available within their medically 
documented restrictions.     

 

Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Rules, Regulations and Fee Schedules, Ch. 1, 
Sec. 4(x) (September 1999). 

 

[¶7]      As support for 
his claims, Mr. Abeyta cites Johnson v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 48, 23 P.3d 32 (Wyo. 2001) in 
which this Court held that a severely injured worker who did not look for work 
post-injury met his burden of proving that he actively sought suitable work 
"considering the employee's health" by presenting his treating physician's 
opinion that any regular job likely would have worsened his condition.  Mr. Abeyta argues the holding in 
Johnson should be extended to the other factors listed in § 
27-14-405(h)(iii), such that the hearing examiner properly should have held that 
he met his burden of proving he actively sought suitable work considering his 
"education, training and experience" by demonstrating he contacted three 
potential employers over the course of five days after applying for a permanent 
partial disability award.     

 

[¶8]      The Division 
asserts Mr. Abeyta did not meet his burden of proof under § 27-14-405(h)(iii) 
and the hearing examiner's order denying benefits should be affirmed.  The Division argues that Johnson 
is not applicable because it involved an employee whose injuries were so severe 
that any kind of work would have aggravated his condition.  The Division contends this Court's 
decision merely harmonized § 27-14-405(h)(iii)'s work search requirement with § 
27-14-407, which prohibits an injured worker from pursuing activities in 
disregard of his injuries.  The 
Division argues Johnson also is distinguishable because this Court held 
only that the statement from Mr. Johnson's treating physician was sufficient to 
carry his burden, and the burden then shifted to the Division to show he 
did not actively seek work considering his health.  The Division contends Mr. Abeyta, in 
contrast to the employee in Johnson, did not carry his burden because he 
presented no evidence other than his own testimony that he lacked the education, 
background and experience to understand what was expected of him in seeking 
alternative work, which testimony the hearing examiner found lacked 
credibility.

 

[¶9]      We agree with the 
Division's analysis of Johnson.  
There, we were concerned with a severely debilitated worker whose 
treating physician advised against work of any kind lest his already diminished 
physical state be further diminished.  
Under those particular facts, we held the worker met his burden by 
submitting the written statement of his physician. Pointing to the language of § 
27-14-405(h)(iii) qualifying the requirement that the employee "actively sought 
suitable work" with the language "considering the employee's health", we held 
that Mr. Johnson met his burden.  We 
held the burden then shifted to the Division to demonstrate that Mr. Johnson did 
not actively pursue employment considering his health, which it failed to do by 
submitting a second medical report tending to support the treating physician's 
conclusion that return to the regular workforce would be detrimental to his 
health. 

 

[¶10]   The situation before us in Mr. 
Abeyta's case is significantly different.  
Nothing in the qualifying language of § 27-14-405(h)(iii) suggests that 
an injured worker's lack of education or unfamiliarity with the worker's 
compensation system excuses him from actively seeking suitable work.  Rather, the qualifying words 
"considering the employee's health, education, training and experience" are 
factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a worker has made a real 
effort to find work for which he is qualified.  In Johnson, the worker presented 
evidence that, considering his health, there was no suitable work for him.  Mr. Abeyta made no similar showing that, 
considering his education, training and experience, there was no suitable work 
for him.  Rather, Mr. Abeyta sought 
to meet his burden by showing that he did not know, and no one from the Division 
told him, what was expected of him in seeking suitable work. 

 

[¶11]   There is no magic formula for what 
constitutes "actively seeking suitable work" and no particular level of 
education, training or experience is required to decipher the phrase. One is 
either actively looking for work, or one is not.  Moreover, the application for a 
permanent partial disability award filled out and submitted by Mr. Abeyta 
indicates what was expected in terms of a job search.  The application sought information from 
him concerning his work search, including whether he was registered with job 
service, the names of any other employment agencies through which he was seeking 
work, whether he was involved in any vocational or retraining programs, an 
explanation of any other methods he was using to find work and completion of a 
work search form to allow the Division to verify that he was actively seeking 
work.  In explaining what other 
methods he was using to find work, Mr. Abeyta wrote:  "I can not return to work due to 
problems with left hand and wrist."  
The work search record submitted by Mr. Abeyta showed he inquired about 
three jobs between May 6 and 10, 2002, but did not submit applications for any 
of them.  On the basis of this 
evidence, and its conclusion that Mr. Abeyta's testimony was not credible, the 
hearing examiner reasonably concluded Mr. Abeyta did not meet his burden of 
proving that he actively sought suitable work, considering his health, training 
and experience.

 

[¶12]   Mr. Abeyta's case is more akin to 
two other more recent Wyoming cases than it is to Johnson.  In Hermosillo v. State ex rel. 
Workers' Safety and Compensation, 2002 WY 175, 58 P.3d 924 (Wyo. 2002), the 
hearing examiner concluded that Mr. Hermosillo relied on the department of 
vocational rehabilitation to find employment and took no other steps to find 
alternative work.  Mr. Hermosillo 
presented evidence showing that he applied at ten different companies beginning 
in 1999 (no dates or further details were presented) and in 2000, before 
applying for a permanent partial award, he registered with the department of 
vocational rehabilitation.  The 
Division presented evidence through a vocational evaluator that work was 
available in 2000 and 2001 for which Mr. Hermosillo was qualified with his 
restrictions.  We said: 

 

This 
evidence of sporadic efforts is substantial evidence supporting the hearing 
examiner's conclusion that Hermosillo did not present evidence that he had 
engaged in any kind of a sustained effort to apply or train for work when he 
applied for benefits. Although the evidence somewhat conflicts, a review of the 
entire record shows that the hearing examiner's conclusion that Hermosillo had 
not actively looked for work as required by the statute was reasonable . . . 
.              

 

Id., 
¶ 9.

 

[¶13]   More recently, in Ludwig v. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation, 2004 WY 34, 
86 P.3d 875 (Wyo. 2004), we again considered the question of whether an employee 
actively sought suitable work within the meaning of § 27-14-405(h)(iii) so as to 
qualify for permanent partial disability benefits.  After sustaining a work injury in 1999 
and receiving an impairment rating in 2000, Ms. Ludwig applied for a permanent 
partial disability award.  The 
evidence showed that she contacted six potential employers in 2000, but only 
submitted four applications, contacted two employers in 2001, but submitted no 
applications, and contacted six employers in 2002 just days before applying for 
permanent partial disability, but again submitted no actual job 
applications.  Ms. Ludwig also 
testified that to the best of her knowledge she signed up with job service but 
did not contact them on a regular basis.  
Evidence was also presented that potential alternative positions were 
available that took into account Ms. Ludwig's limitations.  We held the hearing examiner's 
conclusion that Ms. Ludwig failed to prove that she actively sought suitable 
employment was supported by substantial evidence.

 

[¶14]   These cases and the evidence 
presented by Mr. Abeyta fully support the hearing examiner's conclusion that Mr. 
Abeyta failed to meet his burden of proving that he actively sought suitable 
work, considering his health, education, training and experience.  We are further persuaded of the 
correctness of the hearing examiner's conclusion by the fact that he had the 
opportunity to hear Mr. Abeyta's testimony and weigh his credibility. According 
due consideration to the principle that we will not substitute our judgment for 
that of the hearing examiner's when substantial evidence supports his decision, 
we affirm.