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

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Haynes v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div1998 WY 93962 P.2d 876Case Number: 97-87Decided: 07/29/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

Odell 
HAYNES, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Niobrara County, 
Barton R. Voigt, J.

 

Donald L. Painter, Casper, 
Appellant (Petitioner).

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, 
Cheyenne, Appellee (Respondent).

 

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

 * Chief Justice at time of 
conference.

 

TAYLOR, Justice.

 [¶1] The Medical Commission awarded worker's 
compensation benefits to appellant for a seizure precipitated by a fall which 
had aggravated a pre-existing congenital arteriovenous malformation (AVM). 
However, the Medical Commission denied benefits for the subsequent treatment to 
repair the AVM. Finding that the Medical Commission correctly distinguished 
work-related aggravation of a pre-existing condition from the non-work related 
repair of that condition, we affirm.

 

                                             
I. ISSUE

 

[¶2] Only one issue is 
presented. Appellant, Odell Haynes (Haynes), states the 
issue:

 

Whether the repair of Petitioner's preexisting 
arteriovenous malformation (AVM) is compensable under the Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Act (Act).

 

[¶3] Appellee, State ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division), phrases the issue 
as:

 

A. 
Was the Medical Commission's denial of benefits for the repair of the Employee's 
preexisting condition in accordance with law?

 

[¶4] However, the issue is 
best stated by the district court in its decision letter:

 

In 
a case where the expenses and disability resulting from a compensable injury are 
severable from the expenses and disability resulting from repair of a 
pre-existing condition, is the employee-claimant entitled to benefits for the 
latter?

 

                                
             II. 
FACTS

 

[¶5] Haynes sustained an 
on-the-job fall on September 18, 1995. Initially treated as a minor injury, 
benefits were paid for treatment directly related to the fall. On October 22, 
1995, Haynes experienced a seizure and was taken to medical facilities in 
Scottsbluff, Nebraska. There, it was discovered that Haynes had a previously 
undiagnosed AVM. He was treated for the seizure and referred to Dr. Lee E. 
Krauth, a neurologist in Denver, Colorado. After seeing Haynes on November 2, 
1995, Dr. Krauth noted that "[Haynes] recovered from his seizure without any 
permanent deficits or sequelae * * *." Dr. Krauth indicated that treatment 
options were discussed, including 
anticonvulsants and observation only, and various more aggressive treatments. 
Haynes chose an aggressive approach for repair of the AVM.

 

[¶6] Haynes requested 
benefits for the expenses and disability resulting from his seizure and also 
from the AVM repair. Benefits were denied by the Division, and a hearing was 
held before the Medical Commission. The Medical Commission 
determined:

 

Mr. Haynes has shown by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the fall which occurred on September 18, 1995 contributed to a 
material degree to the aggravation of his underlying preexisting arterioven[o]us 
malformation, precipitating a seizure on October 22, 1995. The acute care 
administered to Mr. Haynes as a result of the seizure episode is compensable 
under Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59, (Wyo. 1993). The intravascular 
embolization procedure, provided to repair this long-standing, preexisting 
condition, is not compensable under the Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Act.

 

The district court affirmed 
the Medical Commission's denial of benefits for the AVM repair, and Haynes 
brought this appeal.

 

                                      
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶7] Haynes does not contest 
the Medical Commission's findings of fact, only the legal conclusion that costs 
of the AVM repair are not compensable. An agency's conclusion of law is entitled 
to no deference from this court. We will affirm an agency's legal conclusion 
only if it is in accordance with the law. Nelson v. Sheridan Manor, 939 P.2d 252, 255 (Wyo. 1997); State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. 
Roggenbuck, 938 P.2d 851, 853 (Wyo. 1997).

 

                                          
IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶8] There is no question 
that Haynes suffered a work-related fall which materially aggravated his 
pre-existing AVM condition and led to a seizure one month later. The Division 
has not contested the granting of benefits for the seizure. Nor is there any 
question that the work-related fall did not cause the need for repair of 
the long-standing AVM. Although our precedent seems to clearly state the 
opposite, Haynes argues that Wyoming's worker's compensation law is "all or 
nothing;" once a claimant's pre-existing condition is materially aggravated, all 
expenses necessary to care for that condition are payable, without regard to 
whether they result from the work-related aggravation.

 

[¶9] A pre-existing 
condition may present a compensable claim, " ' "if the employment aggravated, 
accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the * * * 
disability for which compensation is sought." ' " Matter of Fisher, 914 P.2d 1224, 1227 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting 1 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, § 12.20 
at 3-276 and citing Lindbloom v. Teton Intern., 684 P.2d 1388, 1390 (Wyo. 
1984)). The claimant seeking damages for aggravation of a preexisting injury 
must prove that the "work effort contributed to a material degree to the 
precipitation, aggravation or acceleration of the existing condition of the 
employee." Lindbloom, 684 P.2d  at 1389-90.

 

[¶10] In Lindbloom, the 
claimant suffered a dislocation of his right knee after slipping on ice at work. 
He later underwent surgery to correct a pre-existing condition of 
dislocation-prone patellae. Since it was the preexisting condition, not the fall 
at work, that caused the need for surgery, the claimant was denied compensation. 
Finding that the work-related fall did not change the need for, or the extent 
of, the surgery to correct the pre-existing condition, we affirmed. Lindbloom, 
684 P.2d  at 1390.

 

[¶11] The same is true here. 
Although Haynes' fall aggravated his pre-existing condition and caused him to 
suffer expenses and some disability, Dr. Krauth's letter clearly states that 
Haynes had fully recovered by the time he visited Dr. Krauth. Haynes was given a 
range of choices for dealing with his AVM, including no medical intervention at 
all. Haynes chose to undergo aggressive treatment to correct the AVM. Clearly, 
Haynes' fall did not change the need for, or the extent of, the treatment he 
chose to correct his pre-existing condition.

 

[¶12] In denying benefits 
for Haynes' AVM repair, the Medical Commission reasoned:

 

The fall and seizure led only to the fortuitous 
discovery of the AVM and did not necessitate the need for treatment of this 
condition. It is the presence of the AVM itself, not any material aggravation of 
this condition, that compels medical intervention. Mr. Haynes has been 
undergoing an intravascular embolization procedure to repair the arteriovenous 
malformation. Mr. Haynes' treatment for repair of the arteriovenous malformation 
is required because of the existence of the AVM, not because of any material 
aggravation to it, and is thus not compensable under the Wyoming Workers' 
Compensation Act.

 

[¶13] This decision is a 
correct application of Wyoming's worker's compensation 
law.

 

                                          
V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶14] While it is consistent 
with the purposes of Wyoming law to expect employers to pay for work-related 
injuries even though a pre-existing condition may have played a part in 
causation, it is not conceivable that the legislature intended employers to pay 
for the separate cost of repairing a pre-existing condition. The intravascular 
embolization procedure required to repair Haynes' pre-existing condition is not 
a compensable injury under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Act.

 

[¶15] 
Affirmed.