Title: Bright v. Sheehan Pipeline

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Bright v. Sheehan Pipeline1998 WY 72960 P.2d 1009Case Number: 97-265Decided: 06/11/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
Robert BRIGHT, Appellant (Employee-claimant),

v.

SHEEHAN PIPELINE, Appellee (Employer-Respondent), and 
State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 
Department of Employment, Appellee (Respondent).  Representing the 
Appellant:

 

Appeal from the District Court, Natrona County, W. 
Thomas Sullins, J.

 

Donald L. Painter, Casper, 
for Appellant (Employee-Claimant)

David A. Drell of Brooks, 
Henley & Drell, P.C., Casper, for Appellee Sheehan 
Pipeline.

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, 
for Appellee State of Wyoming.

 

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

 

MACY, Justice.

 [¶1] The hearing examiner denied the claim submitted 
by Appellant Robert Bright (the employee) for worker's compensation 
benefits.  The employee filed a 
petition for review with the district court, and the district court certified 
the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b).

 

[¶2] We affirm the hearing 
examiner's decision.

 

                                              
ISSUE

 

[¶3] The employee requests 
our review of the following issue:

 

1. Whether Appellant is barred from recovery of 
benefit because of a pre-existing condition under W.S. 1977 § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(F).

 

                                              
FACTS

 

[¶4] Before going to work 
for Appellee Sheehan Pipeline (the employer), the employee worked as a 
professional rodeo bull rider. In 1994, the employee suffered a dislocation of 
his right shoulder when a bull stepped on him. He underwent surgery on the right 
shoulder to repair the dislocation. In 1995, while he was working for a previous 
employer, the employee again dislocated his right shoulder when a desk fell over 
on him. The employee underwent a second surgery on his right shoulder. Both 
surgeries were conducted to correct a congenital defect. People with this defect 
have shallow sockets which make them more prone to having shoulder 
dislocations.

 

[¶5] In May of 1996, the 
employee dislocated his left shoulder when the bull he was riding jumped into 
the air and fell onto its side, landing on the employee's leg. The employee's 
body was thrown to the ground with his left arm extending upward. The shoulder 
was treated with physical therapy.

 

[¶6] The employee began 
working for the employer on September 15, 1996, as a welder's helper. On October 
30, 1996, the employee slipped in some mud and fell against a pipe, dislocating 
his left shoulder. The shoulder was dislocated for a couple of seconds, but it 
popped back into place by itself. The following day, the employee saw a doctor 
who recommended that ice be put on the shoulder, that the employee take 
medication, and that his duty for the next day be light. The employee's shoulder 
dislocated again that evening during his sleep, and the employee quit his job 
the next day. On November 7, 1996, the employee visited Boyd Maxfield Iverson, 
M.D., the surgeon who had performed his right shoulder surgeries. Dr. Iverson 
diagnosed a post traumatic dislocation with recurrent subluxation of the left 
shoulder and prescribed two weeks of physical therapy. When the shoulder did not 
improve with physical therapy, Dr. Iverson performed surgery on 
it.

 

[¶7] The employee filed an 
injury report and requested medical and temporary total disability benefits. The 
employer and the Workers' Compensation Division objected, claiming that the 
employee had previously injured his shoulder in a bull riding accident and that, 
therefore, the employee's shoulder condition was not work related. A hearing was 
held, and the hearing examiner denied benefits after finding that the employee's 
injury was the result of a preexisting condition and that he had not 
demonstrated his fall against the pipe was a material aggravation of the 
preexisting condition. The employee petitioned the district court for a review 
of the case, and the district court certified the case to this 
Court.

 

                               
            DISCUSSION

 

[¶8] The hearing examiner 
found that the employee's shoulder injury was not a material aggravation of a 
preexisting condition which had been caused by his employment. The employee 
claims that substantial evidence did not support that finding. Because the 
employee does not contest that he had a preexisting condition, we only need to 
decide whether that condition was materially aggravated by the employee's 
employment.

 

[¶9] W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) 
limits judicial review of administrative decisions to a determination of the 
matters which are specified in WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1997). Under the 
worker's compensation statutory scheme, an injury does not include "[a]ny injury 
or condition preexisting at the time of employment with the employer against 
whom a claim is made." WYO. STAT. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(F) (1997).  A preexisting condition may, however, be 
compensable if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the 
preexisting condition to produce the disability for which the employee is 
seeking benefits. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. 
Fisher, 914 P.2d 1224, 1227 (Wyo. 1996).

 

[¶10] Whether a preexisting 
condition has been aggravated by the employment is a question of fact. Corman v. 
State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 909 P.2d 966, 972 (Wyo. 
1996). We review an administrative agency's findings of fact by applying the 
substantial evidence standard. Section 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E). Our task is to 
examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported 
the hearing examiner's findings. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation 
Division v. Waggener, 946 P.2d 808, 814 (Wyo. 1997). We will not substitute our 
judgment for that of the hearing examiner when substantial evidence supports her 
decision. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind 
might accept in support of the agency's 
conclusions. Id.

 

[¶11] The employer's expert 
medical witness, Dan Blake Greer, M.D., reviewed the employee's medical records 
and determined that the employee suffered from a congenital defect known as 
chronic dislocation of the left shoulder caused by a shallowness of "the glenoid 
fossa of the socket that the bone of the upper arm moves into. And it's shallow 
enough that it will dislocate easily." Dr. Greer said that the fact that the 
surgeries on the employee's right shoulder were performed to correct the same 
condition, coupled with the physical therapists' records which indicated that 
the "[p]atient is dislocating currently his shoulder and just in October 
experienced his 4th dislocation," supported his diagnosis. He also stated that 
the employee's ability to relocate his shoulder without anesthesia and reduction 
after it dislocated further confirmed that the employee had a chronic recurrent 
condition, explaining that, when a normal shoulder dislocates, it is impossible 
to pop it back in without anesthesia and reduction. Dr. Greer testified that, 
once a person with this type of condition dislocates his shoulder, subsequent 
dislocations may occur with minimal trauma.

 

[¶12] Dr. Iverson testified 
that the employee's explanation of the October 30, 1996, incident was consistent 
with the left shoulder injury that he treated. He, however, had not been 
informed about the May 1996 dislocation and admitted that he based his opinion 
about causation upon the medical history which the employee had given. When he 
was presented with the possibility that the employee had suffered a previous 
dislocation in his left shoulder, Dr. Iverson said that he was "not going to 
start making assumptions about anything." He, therefore, did not render an 
opinion about whether the employee's shoulder problem could have existed before 
this incident occurred. He did agree with Dr. Greer's opinion that, once a 
person has suffered a dislocation, he is more likely to have subsequent 
dislocations.

 

[¶13] The only expert 
medical evidence which supported the employee's claim that the fall against the 
pipe substantially aggravated his condition was Dr. Greer's statement that it 
was possible. The majority of Dr. Greer's testimony, however, indicated that the 
October 30th dislocation was simply the result of the natural progress of the 
underlying shallow shoulder socket and that the employee's surgery was performed 
to correct this congenital condition rather than to treat a work-related 
injury.

 

[¶14] The evidence 
demonstrated that the October 30th injury resulted from the natural and normal 
progress of the preexisting congenital condition rather than from a material 
aggravation of that condition. The employee's shallow shoulder socket made 
dislocation of the shoulder more likely before the shoulder was ever injured. 
The May 1996 bull riding fall which dislocated the employee's left shoulder made 
the shoulder even more susceptible to being dislocated with minimal trauma. 
Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's 
decision.

 

[¶15] 
Affirmed.