Opinion ID: 1191902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Application of Cabral

Text: Contrary to the hearing examiner's conclusion, Sellers was not required to show that some unique work related circumstance or event occurred when [Sellers] was exiting the vehicle which could take [her] injury out of an act of everyday living. The burden to prove that Sellers' injury came within the normal daily activity exception of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(G) rested upon the Division. The plain language of this statute requires that medical evidence, which is supported by objective findings, be presented to establish that the claimant's injury resulted primarily from the normal activities of day-to-day living. Cabral, 920 P.2d at 270. It is uncontested that Sellers was engaged in job-related duties when she injured her back while exiting her vehicle. Sellers satisfied her burden by providing evidence that she was injured while fulfilling her employment duties. The Division, however, offered no medical evidence to establish that Sellers' injury resulted primarily from the normal activities of daily living or to discount Dr. Arguello's testimony. The Division, therefore, failed to meet its burden to show that the injury was not work related. Merely stating that exiting a vehicle is an act of daily living is insufficient to satisfy the Division's burden of proof. The Division, in accordance with the right-of-control test, must present evidence to show that the activity in question is a normal activity of day-to-day living. Accordingly, we are bound to set aside the hearing examiner's decision since it misapplies and contradicts Cabral and is, therefore, not in accordance with law. Stuckey v. State, ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Wyo. 1995).