Title: Matter of Bagshaw

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Matter of Bagshaw1988 WY 64753 P.2d 1044Case Number: 87-248Decided: 05/05/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF LESLIE BAGSHAW. LESLIE BAGSHAW, APPELLANT 
(EMPLOYEE-CLAIMANT),

v.

CIRCLE H OILFIELD 
SERVICE, APPELLEE (EMPLOYER-DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, UintaCounty, John D. Troughton, 
J.

Timothy O. 
Beppler of Vehar, Beppler, Jacobson, Lavery & Rose, P.C., Evanston, for appellant.

Dennis W. 
Lancaster of Phillips, Lancaster & Thomas, P.C., Evanston, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT 
and MACY, JJ.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This is an appeal from 
a judgment denying benefits to appellant Leslie Bagshaw under the Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Act, §§ 27-14-101 through 27-14-804, W.S. 
1977.

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     Appellant raises a 
solitary issue:

"WHETHER THERE WAS 
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL DETERMINATION THAT 
APPELLANT WAS NOT INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH 
APPELLEE?"

[¶4.]     On February 6, 1987, 
appellant filed an employee's injury report claiming that he had injured his 
lower back on December 3, 1986, while he was employed by appellee Circle H 
Oilfield Service, and he subsequently applied for temporary total disability 
benefits, medical expenses, and other benefits. On March 30, 1987, appellee 
filed a written objection to the award of any worker's compensation benefits to 
appellant. Appellant responded to this objection, and, after completion of 
discovery, the matter came on for hearing before the trial court on August 28, 
1987. On September 14, 1987, the trial court entered a judgment which stated in 
applicable part:

"The Court, after 
considering the evidence presented at the trial, and having considered all facts 
pertaining to this issue, does find generally in favor of the 
Employer/Contestant, and finds that the injury complained of by the 
Employee/Claimant did not arise out of and was not in the course of his 
employment while employed by the Employer/Contestant. The Court therefore does 
find generally in favor for the Employer/Contestant and against the 
Employee/Claimant.

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, 
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered in behalf of the 
Employer/Contestant against the Employee/Claimant and it being ordered that the 
Employee/Claimant shall not be entitled to any benefits under the Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Law since the injury complained of by the 
Employee/Claimant did not arise out of and was not in the course of his 
employment with the Employer/Contestant, Circle H Oilfield 
Service."

This appeal 
followed.

[¶5.]     Recently, in Leonard v. 
McDonalds of Jackson Hole, Wyo., 746 P.2d 1261, 1262 (1987), quoting from State 
ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division v. Lewis, Wyo., 739 P.2d 1225, 1226 
(1987), we enunciated the standard of review which we apply when we are 
presented with a question of sufficiency of the evidence:

"`In reviewing the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact by the trial court, this 
court will examine only the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and give 
to it every favorable inference. When examined under this standard, if there is 
substantial evidence to support the factual findings by the trial court, its 
order will not be disturbed.'"

We also stated 
that, "in a worker's compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proof on 
the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence." 746 P.2d  at 1263.

[¶6.]     Appellant claims that, 
while he was helping lift a section of pipe, he felt a sharp pain which caused 
him to drop to his knees for a period of approximately two minutes. However, 
according to the evidence presented at trial, none of the other crew members 
present recalled seeing appellant fall to his knees or recalled feeling the pipe 
drop. Appellant's co-employees, boss, and supervisor testified further that, 
even though appellant complained to them the same day about his back hurting, 
appellant refused to be relieved by another employee and continued to work for 
the remainder of the day. The evidence also indicates that appellant worked 
eleven and one-half hours the following day and that he continued to work until 
January 7, 1987, his last day of employment with appellee, without complaining 
to his supervisor or boss about his back hurting or about being injured. In 
addition, appellant went bowling on the evening he allegedly injured his back, 
and he continued to bowl without any visible back pain on Wednesday evenings and 
Thursday mornings until mid-April 1987 when the bowling league activities ended. 
Appellant also did not file his claim until February 6, 1987, approximately a 
month after his employment was terminated due to a reduction in 
business.

[¶7.]     We stated in State ex 
rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division v. Van Buskirk, Wyo., 721 P.2d 570, 
571 (1986), quoting from Western Power Service & Construction v. Van Matre, 
Wyo., 657 P.2d 815, 816 (1983), that:

"`Whether an injury 
arises out of and in the course of employment is a question for the trier of 
fact in a worker's compensation case. The burden is on the worker to prove that 
his injury arose in the course of employment. There must be some substantial 
competent evidence to warrant the trier of fact drawing such an 
inference.'"

We have reviewed 
the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's finding and hold 
that there is substantial evidence to support the result. While appellant 
sufficiently substantiated that he had incurred a back injury, he failed to 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such back injury arose out of and 
in the course of his employment.

[¶8.]     
Affirmed.