Court Opinion

ID: 9626193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:04:59.371925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:23.059878
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
dissenting.
I.
I believe it not only to be extremely speculative and unreliable to gauge the extent of permanent partial disability only on evidence of reduced earnings, but it is also not statutorily authorized.
In worker’s compensation cases, judicial decisions from other states are of little or no help in Wyoming cases inasmuch as our worker’s compensation law is not duplicated in other states. Our law designedly restricts consideration to the effect an injury has on the ability to work, not the ability to earn money.
“ * * * One (1) factor to be considered is the ability of the employee to continue to perform work for which he was reasonably suited by experience or training prior to the injury.” (Emphasis added.) Section 27-12-403(h), W.S.1977.
The trial judge was definitely correct in stating in his order that:
“I am not aware of any section of the Worker’s Compensation Statutes which would allow me to determine a percentage of disability because an injured worker has suffered a decrease in his income. * * *”
In State ex rel. Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Division v. Colvin, Wyo., 681 P.2d 269 (1984), we noted the propriety of evidence relating to the decreased ability of the claimant to perform work for which he was reasonably suited before the injury, but we carefully refrained from gauging the disability by comparable earnings. Now, in this case, we are opening the door into an uncontrollable evidentiary area of speculation deliberately avoided by the legislature.
II.
I have no strong objection to a remand of the case for the purpose of taking correct *97medical evidence as to a percentage of permanent partial disability, but I do not think a proper showing has been made to us for such action.
Appellant’s pleadings in this case (the claim) made no mention of an issue based on medical evidence. The claim simply asserted a 25% permanent partial disability “as shown by earning losses.” Now, on appeal, for the first time appellant asks for consideration of 2V2-year-old depositions of medical doctors assigning a 5% to 10% and a 10% permanent disability. The adverse parties had no notice of this contention and no opportunity to update or otherwise verify or contest the assertion. We do not normally give relief under such circumstances. Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corporation, Wyo., 665 P.2d 452 (1983); ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips, Wyo., 632 P.2d 925 (1981); Harris v. Grizzle, Wyo., 599 P.2d 580 (1979); Scherling v. Kilgore, Wyo., 599 P.2d 1352 (1979); Kearney Lake, Land & Reservoir Company v. Lake DeSmet Reservoir Company, Wyo., 475 P.2d 548 (1970); Watts v. Holmes, Wyo., 386 P.2d 718 (1963).
Appellant ought not be allowed to inject a new theory and issue for the first time on appeal. Again, a precedent with far-reaching results is being established by the majority opinion.
III.
I am unwilling to overrule our previous positions in both of these respects, and I would affirm the trial court.