Opinion ID: 2589834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Final Determination

Text: The Workers' Compensation Division has reviewed your accident report and medical records on 4/21/98, and has determined that we cannot approve payment of benefits for the following reason(s): 1) Definition of injury does not include: Any injury or condition preexisting at the time of employment with the employer against whom a claim is made. (Wyoming Statute XX-XX-XXX(a)(xi)(f)); 2) The burden is on the claimant to prove each essential element of his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) The incident, as reported to the Division, does not meet the following definition: Injury means any harmful change in the human organism other than normal aging and includes damage to or loss of any artificial replacement or death, arising out of and in the course of employment while at work in or about the premises occupied, used or controlled by the employer and incurred while at work in places where the employer's business requires an employee's presence and which subjects the employee to extrahazardous duties incident to the business. (Wyoming Statute XX-XX-XXX(a)(xi)); 4) Definition of injury does not include: Any injury resulting primarily from the natural aging process or from the normal activities of day-to-day living, as established by medical evidence supported by objective findings. (Wyoming Statute XX-XX-XXX(a)(xi)(G)). [Emphasis in original.] The only conclusion that we can make from a reading of the letter denying benefits is that it was premised on a preexisting condition, the natural aging process, and normal activities of day-to-day living. The problem with those conclusions is that there was no evidence of record developed in the Division's investigation of Ikenberry's injury to support those conclusions. It is correct that Ikenberry had a preexisting condition, but that condition was in his neck, and Dr. Metz positively eliminated that as being related to the injury he corrected with the surgery (... obvious that these are totally unrelated things.). Dr. Metz characterized Ikenberry's back as showing only normal degeneration based on his work history (no mention is made of the natural aging process), and there is no evidence that the injury resulted from the normal activities of day-to-day living. No mention is made in the above-quoted letter of the issues that were advanced at the hearing held on this matter (lying, deceit, artifice, etc.). Indeed, we feel compelled to note that the above-quoted letter appeared to have been composed based on speculation that was unsupported by the only medical evidence available to the Division. On May 14, 1998, Ikenberry filed a request for a hearing on the denial of his claim stating: We are objecting on the grounds that we are denying that this is a preexisting injury. Thereafter, the wheels of justice turned somewhat slowly because Ikenberry was returned to the Wyoming State Penitentiary from CAC, and assigning the case from Natrona County to Carbon County took some time. Suffice it to say for purposes of this appeal, his hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings did not take place until March 30, 1999, and the Hearing Examiner's order is dated April 29, 1999. On May 18, 1999, Ikenberry filed his petition for review in the district court, and the district court certified the matter to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P 12 on August 23, 1999.