Opinion ID: 1179881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Burdens of Proof

Text: Thornberg asserts that his evidence was sufficient and that the medical testimony supported a finding of a nexus between the bumpy ride and his later diagnosed condition. To evaluate this argument, we will inventory the burdens of proof in worker's compensation cases. A claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden of proving all the statutory elements which comprise a compensable injury. Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., 526 P.2d 1197, 1199 (Wyo. 1974); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, 474 P.2d 297, 298 (Wyo.1970); Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Scrogham, 52 Wyo. 232, 252, 73 P.2d 300, 307 (1937). To show compensable injury, the claimant must prove all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Hepp, 881 P.2d at 1078; Sims v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 872 P.2d 555, 557 (Wyo.1994); Alco of Wyoming v. Baker, 651 P.2d 266, 267 (Wyo.1982). A preponderance of the evidence is defined as proof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence. Scherling v. Kilgore, 599 P.2d 1352, 1359 (Wyo.1979). The only ostensible element missing in Thornberg's claim was the element of causation embedded in the definition of injury: (xi) Injury means any harmful change in the human organism other than normal aging and includes damage to or loss of any artificial replacement and 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. WYO.STAT. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (Supp.1995) (emphasis added). Thornberg's statutory burden to prove injury necessarily carries the evidentiary burden to prove that his coccydynia arose out of or was caused by the bumpy ride. Five doctors testified as expert witnesses and gave their opinions in support of or in opposition to Thornberg's contention that his condition was causally related to his injury. All the doctors were competent witnesses, and each was qualified to give expert testimony. Competency and expert witness status having been established, the hearing examiner was left to apply the evidentiary standards which pertain to administrative hearings.