Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF DAVID BLOCK: DAVID BLOCK V. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF DAVID BLOCK: DAVID BLOCK V. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2009 WY 34202 P.3d 1064Case Number: S-07-0283Decided: 03/10/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF DAVID BLOCK: DAVID 
BLOCK,Appellant(Petitioner),v.STATE OF WYOMING ex 
rel. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,Appellee(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

The 
Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

James 
R. Salisbury and Sean C. Chambers of Riske, Salisbury & Kelly, P.C., 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. 
Radosevich, Senior Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice. 

 
 
[¶1]      David Block 
suffered a work injury found to be compensable by the Workers' Compensation 
Division.  A little more than two 
years after his injury, he applied for permanent partial disability (PPD) 
benefits.  By statute, Block would 
be eligible for PPD benefits if, because of his work-related injury, there were 
no jobs available for him in Wyoming that paid at least ninety-five percent 
(95%) of his prior wage.1  A labor market survey indicated there 
were no jobs available fulfilling the statutory requirements for Block in 
Wyoming.  After receiving the labor 
market survey, the Division approached Block's employer at the time of his 
injury.  At the Division's 
encouragement, the employer stated it would offer to rehire Block to his prior 
position with appropriate accommodations.  
Based on this assurance, and before the employer formally offered Block 
his old job, the Division denied Block's application for PPD benefits.  

 
 
[¶2]      Block declined 
the job offer he eventually received from his former employer.  Block contested the denial of his 
application for PPD benefits and lost after a contested case hearing.  The district court affirmed the 
denial.  We reverse.  

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      Block presents 
four issues for our review:

 
 
A.        
Whether the Hearing Officer committed an error of law in its application 
of Wyoming Statute § 27-14-405 in denying permanent partial disability benefits 
to Appellant.

 
 
B.        
Whether the Order entered by the Hearing Officer on April 27, 2007, is 
supported by substantial evidence.

 
 
C.        
Whether the Order entered by the Hearing Officer on April 27, 2007, is 
arbitrary and capricious and contrary to Wyoming law.

 
 
D.        
Whether the Order entered by the Hearing Officer on April 27, 2007, is 
contrary to public policy.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      In February 2002, 
Block worked for Tennyson-Ankeny Construction as a carpenter's helper and 
general laborer, earning $12.00 an hour.   His job duties included cleaning 
the construction site of debris and snow, tearing down and removing temporary 
structures, and helping other workers as needed.  Block testified he regularly carried 
two-by-fours, metal beams, doors and other heavy construction materials around 
the job site.  

 
 
[¶5]      While at work on 
February 19, 2002, Block injured his back and neck moving a heavy beam.  The injury was reported to the Division, 
and Block received medical benefits and temporary total disability (TTD) 
benefits.  Ultimately, Block was 
assigned a seven percent whole body permanent partial impairment (PPI) rating. 

 
 
[¶6]      In May of 2004, 
Block applied for PPD benefits.  
Block underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation and a Vocational 
Evaluation.  The Functional Capacity 
Evaluation related that Block was limited to medium duty work.  Along with the Vocational Evaluation was 
a labor market survey.  The survey 
stated there were no jobs in Wyoming, within Block's physical and vocational 
limitations, that paid an hourly wage equal to or greater than 95% of Block's 
wage at the time of injury ($12.00).  

 
 
[¶7]      On October 14 or 
15, 2004, after receiving the evaluations, a Division claims analyst, Maribeth 
Bazal, contacted Tennyson-Ankeny. Bazal spoke with Barbara Ankeny.  Mrs. Ankeny is the wife of Jay Ankeny (a 
co-owner of Tennyson-Ankeny Construction), and the office manager for the 
company.  During her deposition, 
Mrs. Ankeny testified she did not remember the specifics of her conversation 
with Bazal.  In general, she knew 
Bazal was inquiring whether the company would be willing to rehire Block.  She remembered Bazal mentioning the 
percentage of 95% but was not completely sure of its significance.  During the course of conversation, Mrs. 
Ankeny came to the conclusion that, when Bazal was referring to the 95%, she was 
referring both to Block's physical capacity to do his prior job and the wage the 
company should offer Block.   

 
 
[¶8]      Mrs. Ankeny 
remembered there was some discussion of Block's work restrictions, but she did 
not remember the details.  She only 
remembered she did not consider the restrictions mentioned by Bazal to be 
serious enough to concern her about Block's ability to perform his old job.  The conversation with Bazal left her 
with "the assumption [Block] had the ability to do whatever he had done 
before."  Based on the information 
provided by Bazal, the company agreed to rehire Block to his former position at 
95% of his former salary.  Bazal 
immediately wrote a letter denying Block's application for PPD benefits.  In the letter she stated: "On October 
15, 2004 I contacted your employer and determined that they [sic] are willing to 
accommodate your restrictions at a comparable wage."2  

 
 
[¶9]      Block, who had 
moved to his home state of South Carolina, received the letter from the Division 
informing him of the denial of his PPD.  
Block had yet to receive the offer from Tennyson-Ankeny so he telephoned 
Bazal to enquire as to what was happening.  
Bazal told him he would be getting a letter from Tennyson-Ankeny within a 
few days.  She did not have any 
information on the accommodations that would be made to comply with his work 
restrictions.  Block then called 
Mrs. Ankeny.  She also did not give 
any specifics as to the accommodations the company was willing to make for his 
work restrictions.  

 
 
[¶10]   The letter offer was mailed to 
Block on October 19, 2004.  The 
pertinent language in the letter Block ultimately received from Tennyson-Ankeny 
stated:

 
 
I 
would like to offer to you your previous position in our company, as a 
laborer/carpenter helper, effective immediately, at a comparable wage (95%) (in 
2002 you were earning $12.00/hour).  
Your tasks and wage would be determined by your restrictions, (based on 
the Wyoming Workers' Compensation information for your case), which I am willing 
to accommodate in your position.

 
 
Block 
did not respond to the letter offer.  
Instead, he objected to the denial of PPD benefits.  The denial was referred for a contested 
case hearing.  By order dated June 
9, 2005, the hearing officer agreed with the Division's decision to deny PPD 
benefits.  Block appealed to the 
district court.  The district court 
initially remanded the case to the hearing officer for supplemental 
findings.  The hearing officer 
entered a supplemental order on April 27, 2007.  The district court affirmed the April 
order.  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]   The scope of our review of 
administrative agency decisions is dictated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) 
(LexisNexis 2007), which requires us to:

 
 
(ii) 
Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

            
(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in 
accordance with law;

            
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;            
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or 
lacking statutory right;

            
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or            
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record 
of an agency hearing provided by statute.

 
 
As 
we are governed by the same review standards, we give no deference to the 
district court's order affirming the hearing officer. In this case, because the 
hearing officer decided Block failed to adequately prove his case, we review the 
entire record to determine if the decision is against the overwhelming weight of 
the evidence.  Horn-Dalton v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 14, ¶ 7,  200 P.3d 810, 813 (Wyo. 2009); Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 
84, ¶¶ 21-26, 188 P.3d 554, 561-62 (Wyo. 2008).  

 
 
[¶12]   An injured worker has the burden to 
prove each of the elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.  Phillips v. TIC-The Industrial Co. of 
Wyoming, Inc., 2005 WY 40, ¶ 25, 109 P.3d 520, 531 (Wyo. 2005); Abeyta v. State ex. rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Safety and Comp. Div., 2004 WY 50, ¶ 5, 88 P.3d 1072, 1075 (Wyo. 2004); Johnson v. Wyo. Worker's Safety & Comp. 
Div., 2001 WY 48, ¶ 7, 23 P.3d 32, 35 (Wyo. 2001).   Since Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xv) (LexisNexis 2007) defines "permanent partial disability" as 
"the economic loss to an injured employee . . . resulting from a permanent 
physical impairment," in order to be eligible for PPD benefits, a claimant must 
demonstrate he has suffered a loss of earning capacity due to a work-related 
injury.  Bonsell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Safety and Comp. Div., 2006 WY 114, ¶ 10, 142 P.3d 686, 689 (Wyo. 
2006).

 
 
[¶13]   According to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-405, 

 
 
(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.

 
 
The 
only question in the instant appeal is whether Block could find employment in 
Wyoming at a wage that was at least ninety-five percent (95%) of his pre-injury 
wage.

 
 
[¶14]   Block presented a labor market 
survey from a professional familiar with Block's situation and the job market in 
Wyoming.  The survey stated that 
Block, because of his work-related injury, would not be able to find a job in 
the general economy that paid 95% of his pre-injury wage.  This is enough to constitute a prima 
facie case for entitlement.  The 
Division has attempted to rebut this survey with the assertion that one job 
meeting the statutory requirements did exist  the position offered to Block by 
his former employer.  

 
 
[¶15]   Before we need address the issues 
of law raised by Block, the initial question that logically presents is whether 
the Division's rebuttal allegation that one appropriate, bona fide job offer 
existed is supported by substantial evidence.  The hearing officer stated he believed 
the deposition testimony of Mrs. Ankeny and therefore concluded the job offer 
from Tennyson-Ankeny was a sincere offer.  
He found Tennyson-Ankeny intended to provide employment to Block with 
necessary accommodations and an appropriate wage. 

 
 
[¶16]   There are several problems with 
finding the job offer from Tennyson-Ankeny was a bona fide offer.  First, the record clearly discloses the 
offer was based on misinformation.  
During her deposition, Mrs. Ankeny, although she admittedly had no 
personal knowledge of the job duties of a laborer/carpenter's assistant, 
repeatedly referred to Block's prior position as involving only light duty, such 
as sweeping floors.  From her 
vaguely remembered conversation with Bazal she knew Block had some work 
restrictions, but nothing that seemed of importance to her.  In the end, she assumed Block could 
perform 95% of the job duties of his prior position and only minor 
accommodations would be necessary.  

 
 
[¶17]   However, Mrs. Ankeny testified she 
had no access to Block's worker's compensation file.  She therefore did not know about Block's 
7% whole body impairment rating.  
She also had not seen the Functional Capacity Evaluation limiting Block 
to medium duty work.  Indeed, the 
letter offer makes clear the fact that Tennyson-Ankeny had no immediate 
knowledge of Block's work restrictions.  

 
 
[¶18]   Block, who introduced the only 
evidence of the actual work requirements of his former position, testified the 
position regularly involved activity that exceeded his current physical 
ability.  He believed more than 
minor accommodations would be necessary for him to be able to perform his prior 
job.  Yet it is to that specific job 
that Tennyson-Ankeny extended its employment offer to Block.  Given the lack of concrete information 
and the mistaken assumptions underlying Tennyson-Ankeny's offer, the offer can 
at best be considered contingent.  
It would be sheer speculation to assume Tennyson-Ankeny would have 
maintained its offer to Block once it learned Block's true functional 
capacity.

 
 
[¶19]   This leads to the other main 
problem with the job offer from Tennyson-Ankeny.  The company's lack of knowledge 
regarding Block's functional capacity is unmistakable in the written offer and 
necessarily creates ambiguity.  The 
only certain term is the job title.  
Block's tasks and exact wage were to be determined based on information 
not currently in the company's possession.  
The company stated it was willing to accommodate Block's work 
restrictions, but no indication was given as to the nature or extent of those 
accommodations.  In short, the 
written offer was devoid of information necessary for a reasonable person to be 
able to seriously consider the offer.  
Block cannot be faulted for not accepting such an illusory 
offer.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶20]   Block introduced a labor survey of 
available jobs based on his true functional capacity.  The results of the survey evidence 
Block's eligibility for PPD benefits.  
The Division's rebuttal that one job exists that allegedly would defeat 
Block's entitlement to benefits is against the overwhelming weight of the 
evidence.  

 
 
[¶21]   The order of the district court 
affirming the denial of Block's PPD benefits is reversed.  The case is remanded for the district 
court to order the Division to award Block appropriate PPD 
benefits.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§  27-14-405 (LexisNexis 2007), in 
pertinent part, reads:

            

(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[.]

 
 

2The ambiguity in the date 
of the conversation between Bazal and Mrs. Ankeny stems from the denial letter 
being dated October 14, 2004.