Opinion ID: 2571705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Causation of Injury

Text: [¶ 14] The hearing examiner determined Ms. Robbins failed to prove by competent medical authority that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. The hearing examiner also stated Ms. Robbins failed to meet her burden of proving her injury occurred over a substantial period of time under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(a) (LexisNexis 2001). Ms. Robbins argues that the hearing examiner's determination was not supported by substantial evidence. [¶ 15] When considering an appeal from a district court's review of agency action, we accord no special deference to the district court's conclusions. Instead, we review the case as if it had come directly to us from the administrative agency. French v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023, 1027 (Wyo. 1998) (citation omitted); see also State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 9, 24 P.3d 1133, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2001). [¶ 16] In a worker's compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proving she suffered a compensable injury. Logue v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 62, ¶ 11, 44 P.3d 90, ¶ 11 (Wyo.2002); see also State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo.1996). To satisfy part of that burden, the claimant must prove the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment. Logue, 2002 WY 62, ¶ 11; State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo.1996). [¶ 17] Section 27-14-603(a) sets forth the claimant's burden of proving an injury which occurred over a substantial period of time: (a) The burden of proof in contested cases involving injuries which occur over a substantial period of time is on the employee to prove by competent medical authority that his claim arose out of and in the course of his employment and to prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (i) There is a direct causal connection between the condition or circumstances under which the work is performed and the injury; (ii) The injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the employment; (iii) The injury can fairly be traced to the employment as a proximate cause; (iv) The injury does not come from a hazard to which employees would have been equally exposed outside of the employment; and (v) The injury is incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee. [¶ 18] This court recently refined the standard of review for worker's compensation cases in Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo.2002). We held the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review in appeals from WAPA contested case proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence. 2002 WY 91, ¶ 22. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 10 (citation omitted). In the case at bar, the hearing examiner made factual findings, and both parties submitted evidence; therefore, we will apply the substantial evidence test to Ms. Robbins' appeal. [¶ 19] Ms. Robbins claims the hearing examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because she gave more weight to Dr. Kline's testimony than to Dr. Pettine's testimony. Dr. Pettine examined Ms. Robbins on March 20, 2001. After the examination, he wrote a letter to Ms. Robbins' attorney, which stated in relevant part: In an attempt to answer your questions, the patient works as a butcher at Safeway and has for numerous years. As far as I know, there are no other contributing factors concerning her current back condition, which is basically two torn discs at L4-5 and L5-S1. I think the current back problem is likely directly related to the twisting, bending, stooping, and extensive use of her upper extremities placing continued stress on the lower lumbar area. I think the injury can fairly be traced to her employment as an approximate cause, and I think it is likely she would not be in the current condition she has been without the long history of employment as a butcher. The hearing examiner gave little weight to Dr. Pettine's opinion because it was based upon inaccurate and incomplete medical history provided by Ms. Robbins. In this respect, the hearing examiner found: Robbins failed to mention that she had not worked any significant amount of time for the past one and one half years prior to Dr. Pettine's evaluation, that she was not working as a butcher for the entire 27 years but managed the Deli for 14 of those years, that her back complaints dated back to 1997, some four years prior to Dr. Pettine's examination, or that as recently as January 2000 Robbins related her back pain to activities outside her employment. [¶ 20] The hearing examiner is the fact-finder in a worker's compensation case and is, consequently, charged with determining the witnesses' credibility. Clark v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 132, ¶ 16, 36 P.3d 1145, ¶ 16 (Wyo.2001); Roberts v. R & S Well Service, 2001 WY 117, ¶ 10, 35 P.3d 1219, ¶ 10 (Wyo.2001). When the claimant has not given a medical witness complete or accurate medical information, the hearing examiner may discount or disregard the medical witness' testimony. See, e.g., Franks v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 77, ¶ 18, 46 P.3d 876, ¶ 18 (Wyo.2002); Rice v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 21, ¶ 16, 19 P.3d 508, ¶ 16 (Wyo.2001). It was, therefore, appropriate for the hearing examiner to give little weight to Dr. Pettine's opinion as to the cause of Ms. Robbins' back injury because he did not have complete and accurate information when he formed that opinion. [¶ 21] Ms. Robbins also argues that the hearing examiner was incorrect in relying upon the opinion given by Dr. Kline because Dr. Kline never examined her. Dr. Kline, a retired orthopedic surgeon, reviewed Ms. Robbins' medical records at the division's request. He testified that, based upon his review of Ms. Robbins' medical records, he believed her back condition was the result of the aging process and was not caused by her work activities. [¶ 22] In Russell v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 944 P.2d 1151 (Wyo.1997), we found substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's denial of benefits when the hearing examiner gave greater weight to the opinion of a physician who simply reviewed the claimant's medical records than to the opinion of a physician who had actually examined the claimant but did not have a complete or accurate medical history. It is the hearing examiner's prerogative to examine all the evidence, including the medical opinions offered, and determine whether the claimant has met her burden of establishing the injury occurred in the course or scope of her employment. See 944 P.2d at 1157. Under the particular circumstances of the case at bar, the hearing examiner was justified in giving more weight to Dr. Kline's opinion than to Dr. Pettine's opinion. [¶ 23] Furthermore, the other evidence in this case supported the hearing examiner's decision that Ms. Robbins' injury did not occur in the course and scope of her employment. Dr. Babson treated Ms. Robbins for back pain for several years. In many of his medical notes, he did not mention the specific cause of her back problems. At her February 17, 1998, appointment, Ms. Robbins indicated her back pain was associated with her strenuous activity in caring for her grandchildren. [¶ 24] The only time Dr. Babson's notes indicated an association between Ms. Robbins' work and her back pain was on January 11, 1999. Ms. Robbins related that she had pain in her right flank as a result of lifting heavy meat at work. Dr. Babson treated her, and, although she saw him two more times in 1999, she did not report any back pain. In January 2000, Ms. Robbins told Mr. Pingree her 1999 back injury had healed and the back pain she was presently enduring was the result of an incident at home. [¶ 25] Dr. Babson saw Ms. Robbins several times in the winter and spring of 2000 for work-related stress. She complained of back pain on a couple of those occasions but did not relate it to her work activities. Indeed, Ms. Robbins worked very little during this time period. After Dr. Babson referred her to Dr. Guidry, Dr. Guidry diagnosed various medical problems with her back but refused to offer an opinion as to the cause of those problems. Neither Dr. Guidry nor Dr. PettineMs. Robbins' only medical witnessesdiscussed the § 27-14-603(a) factors for proving a work-related injury which occurred over a substantial period of time. On the record before us, we must conclude substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's decision that Ms. Robbins did not satisfy her burden of proving her injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment with Safeway.