Court Opinion

ID: 9758302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:20:17.533149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:48.432506
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom VOIGT, Justice, joins.
[¶37] I concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately for two reasons. First, I would commend, rather than criticize, the Medical Commission for its thoroughness and detailed explanations of its credibility determinations. Second, in light of those explanations, it is not the function of this Court to reweigh the Commission's ered-ibility determinations.
[¶38] It is difficult to imagine a more comprehensive written decision than the Medical Commission's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Medical Commission Hearing Panel" issued in this case. The document is 40 pages in length. As demonstrated by the excerpts set forth below, the evidence before the Commission is presented in exhaustive detail. Most significantly, the Commission fully explained how it weighed that evidence. Where conflict in the testimony exists, the Commission explained how it resolved that conflict. Where evidence is disregarded based upon credibility concerns, the Commission provided a full explanation. "If, in the course of its decision making process, the agency disregards certain evidence and explains its reasons for doing so based upon determinations of eredi-bility or other factors contained in the ree-ord, its decision will be sustainable under the substantial evidence test." Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo.2008). See also Chavez v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 46, ¶ 18, 204 P.3d 967, 971 (Wyo.2009). Based upon my review of the record, I would conclude that the Commission's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence.
[¶39] We have previously emphasized that a Medical Commission, in rendering its decision, should make specific eredibility determinations. Walton v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2007 WY 46, ¶ 31, 153 P.3d 932, 939 (Wyo.2007). On occasion, we have found it necessary to remand a case because the hearing examiner failed to provide specific findings of credibility, making appellate review of the decision impossible. E.q., Olivas v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2006 WY 29, ¶ 17, 130 P.3d 476, 486 (Wyo.2006) ("When the resolution of a claim for benefits rests largely, if not exclusively, on an assessment of a claimant's ered-ibility, a hearing examiner's failure to make findings regarding the claimant's credibility on the record renders an effective review of the order denying benefits impossible."). This is not such a case, and the majority does not suggest otherwise. Instead, the majority engages in its own credibility determinations. That is not the proper function of this Court and is directly at odds with our precedent. "Credibility determinations are the unique province of the hearing examiner, and we eschew re-weighing those conclusions." Hamilton v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2001 WY 20, ¶ 11, 18 P.3d 637, 640 (Wyo.2001). See Huntington v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2007 WY 124, ¶ 11, 163 P.3d 839, 842 (Wyo.2007); Olivas, ¶ 17, 130 P.3d at 485-86. This Court is not in a position to make determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses. The determination of the weight and credibility of the evidence is assigned by law to the administrative agency as the trier of fact, and it is not within this Court's prerogative to perform that duty. Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 980 P.2d 332, 335 (Wyo.1999).
[T40] At its core, this case revolved around the credibility of Ms. Camilleri. The Commission found that she was not credible, and there is ample support in the record for that determination. There is also support in the record for the Commission's conclusion that the testimony of her supervisor, Kathy Wallingford, was "wanting," and that the evidence presented by other medical experts was more persuasive than the testimony of Dr. Randolph, Ms. Camillert's treating physician.
*65[¶41] The majority concludes that the Commission did not believe Ms. Walling ford's testimony "simply because Wallingford and Camilleri were friends." That is not accurate. Their friendship was a factor mentioned by the Commission in discussing Ms. Wallingford's testimony, but there were additional reasons. Ms. Wallingford did not witness the accident. Additionally, she investigated the incident and could not find one witness to corroborate Ms. Camilleri's story. After describing Ms. Wallingford's testimony in detail, the Commission summed up its view of the testimony this way:
46. ... The Panel notes that Ms. Wall-ingford is a friend of Ms. Camilleri's. Despite the fact that she was not present on the day of the incident, and that she was unable to confirm that anything occurred on the day in question by interviewing kitchen staff, it appears that she is accepting 100% of the Employee/Claimant's version of the events. Ms. Wallingford was terminated by the employer shortly after this incident by the board of directors. On the whole, the Panel finds that the credibility of Ms. Wallingford is wanting.
[¶42] That finding dovetails with the Commission's credibility determination regarding Ms. Bauer, the employee who allegedly caused the injury. According to the Commission:
49. Overall, the testimony of Ms. Bauer was credible and it appears this was a very minor incident. It is undisputed that numerous employees and volunteers [were] working in and near the kitchen when this event occurred. This is a small area. Had a significant event occurred in the doorway, it is probable that there would have been someone who saw something. No witness was called to corroborate the Employee/Claimant's version of these events. From her appearance before the Medical Commission, Ms. Bauer is in her late 50's or early 60's. She is five feet nine inches tall and [at] the time of the accident weighed 230 pounds. Ms. Camilleri is of similar height and weighed 170 pounds at the time of this incident. It seems highly improbable that Ms. Bauer administered a "body check" to Ms. Camilleri that would rival that of a hockey player. Ms. Walling-ford conducted an investigation of this incident and none of the kitchen workers saw anything or were aware of any incident.... The Panel believes that this event was a very minor occurrence and that it is highly improbable that Ms. Cam-illeri sustained any injury.
[¶483] The Commission's "body check" reference is, in large measure, a response to the escalating versions of the incident given by Ms. Camilleri to her physicians and others. According to the Commission:
48. The record and testimony show[ ] that Ms. Camilleri was not credible in her reports to her doctors or to the Panel in this case. Her tone and demeanor during testimony and cross examination indicated she was not being forthcoming. The story of this event as related by Ms. Camilleri has grown and been dramatically changed over time. The report of injury filed with the Division noted that "another employee walked into this employee, hitting [left] shoulder." The report filed with her employer stated that Ms. Bauer slammed her left shoulder and upper body into Ms. Camilleri and shoved her. The Division's injury report paints a picture of a minor incident. The report to her employer presents an entirely different picture. Ms. Camilleri then reports to the police department that she had been assaulted numerous times by Ms. Bauer. However, no corroborating evidence of such was presented. In fact, Ms. Camilleri testified in her deposition that there were no prior physical contacts with Ms. Bauer. This report to the police corresponds to the time Ms. Camilleri lost her job. However, when Ms. Camilleri saw Dr. Jessen on October 28, 2004, she did not say anything about the work incident in issue. By the time she saw Dr. Biles she reported being deliberately slammed into or run into by a co-worker. She then told Dr. Goodman she had been hit by a door opened by a co-employee and she felt a "pop in her neck" and pain into her left shoulder. By the time she saw Dr. Randolph, Ms. Camilleri related that when she was struck by a coworker she was knocked to the ground. She told Dr. Ruttle that when she was hit *66she felt a "pop" in her neck and that she had to catch herself on a counter. This was the first time since the injury that Ms. Camilleri related using her left arm to brace or catch herself. Ms. Camilleri then told Dr. Bilbool, a Psychiatrist, that she was tackled by a co-worker who hit her in the chest and shoulder.
(Internal citations omitted.)
[T 44] Those conflicting "histories" served as a partial basis for the Commission's decision to provide less weight to the opinion of Dr. Randolph. But the Commission also provided additional explanation:
54. The evidence is clear that Ms. Camil-leri had a long history of neck and upper extremity issues. She treated with her chiropractor the day before the incident in question and received treatment on her neck. The incident involving Ms. Bauer was a minor or insignificant event. The Panel does not believe Ms. Camilleri sustained a neck injury. The Panel agrees with Dr. Goodman that, at worst, she sustained a minor exacerbation of her ongoing neck problems and this would have resolved within a short period of time. This is confirmed by Drs. Ruttle and Ford as well. Her neck was certainly at maximum medical improvement by June 22, 2005. To the extent Ms. Camilleri's doctors have opined to the contrary, they were related a history [by] the Employee/Claimant that some significant event occurred. These doctors were not fully aware of the Employee/Claimant's significant pre-existing history. They relied heavily on the subjective complaints of Ms. Camilleri. Dr. Randolph bases much of his opinions on Ms. Camilleri's history that at the time of the injury she spun and had to catch herself on her outstretched left arm. As discussed below, the Panel finds this did not occur. They also do not appear to be fully cognizant of Ms. Camilleri's hostility toward her former employer and co-employee, or the psychological factors in this case. None of these doctors, including Dr. Randolph, have adequately explained the cause of her pain. Likewise, these doctors do not appear to be fully aware of the variable and contradictory findings by other doctors as discussed throughout these findings. No one has explained the claims of bilateral upper extremity problems. There are reports of global pain, exaggerated pain, and pain behaviors that are not addressed. There is little objective evidence of a work injury. Dr. Randolph doggedly maintains that Ms. Camilleri has C.RP.S. despite [the] fact that no criteria for this diagnosis exist as will be discussed below. Dr. Randolph may also have a financial say in the outcome of this case given the extensive amount of treatment performed after June of 2005 and for which he may not be paid. 55. As to the shoulder, again this was a minor incident. Prior to July of 2005, no doctor was able to determine what, if anything, was the cause of her claimed shoulder pain. No doctors were able to find laxity in the shoulder or confirm ... popping or snapping in the shoulder. In July of 2005 Ms. Camilleri reported an incident where her shoulder may have shifted in bed. After this point her pain level appears to have increased. Thereafter, a physical therapist noted in September 2005, that Ms. Camilleri may have some instability in her shoulder and the shoulder did show some sliding to the front of the glenoid. She also had positive impingement testing. Left shoulder instability was also noted at the pain clinic in Billings. Following this July 2005 incident, a left shoulder arthrogram MRI was done that indicated a small tear of the glenoid lab-rum. Dr. Randolph testified that the MRI is not 100% diagnostic and the only way to confirm a glenoid labrum tear is through surgery. Dr. Ford did not believe the MRI showed a tear. Importantly, both Dr. Randolph and Dr. Ford both testified that such conditions are not caused by a direct blow to the shoulder. Such conditions occur from falling or landing on an outstretched arm or repetitive throwing. It was not until Ms. Camilleri saw Dr. Ruttle in July of 2005, that she ever reported using her left arm to catch herself on a counter. The accident and injury reports, as well as history to her many doctors, including Dr. Randolph, never said that the impact caused her to spin around requiring her to catch herself with *67her left arm. This change in her story did not occur for many months. Thus, the required mechanism for such an injury did not occur or exist-Le., falling or landing on an outstretched arm. Based on the testimony from Ms. Bauer, it is questionable if there was even a counter top in proximity to where this claimed event occurred. The glenoid labrum tear, if it exists, is not related to the work injury in question.
Like her neck, the Panel finds that at worst, she would have sustained a minor bump on her left arm and shoulder which would have resolved in a short period of time and certainly by June of 2005.
56. The Panel does not believe Ms. Cam-illeri has C.RP.S. Drs. Ruttle and Ford opined that she does not have this condition. By a lack of notation, it appears that Dr. Gee does not believe she has this condition nor did the pain clinic in Billings. Dr. Randolph wrote and testified that her only symptom of this condition was exaggerated pain. Ms. Camilleri's skin was warm and dry. She does not have discoloration, swelling, abnormal sweating patterns, or vascular changes. Dr. Randolph has never seen a case of C.R.P.S. develop from an impact to the shoulder such as alleged in this case.
The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th Edition) at Table 16-16 at pg. 496 provides objective diagnostic criteria for C.R.P.S. An individual who meets eight or more of the criteria has probable C.R.P.S. If an individual has less than eight of the findings it is unlikely they are suffering from this condition. This table provides the following:
Local clinical signs:
Vasomotor changes:
® Skin color: mottled or cyanotic
® Skin temperature: cool
* Edema
Pseudomotor changes:
e Skin dry or overly moist
Trophic changes:
e Skin texture: smooth, nonelastic
® Soft tissue atrophy: especially in fingertips
® Joint stiffness and decreased passive motion
® Nail changes: blemished, curved, talon-like
® Hair growth changes: fall out, longer, finer
Radiographic signs:
® Radiographs: trophic bone changes osteoporosis
e Bone scan: findings consistent with C.R.P.S.
The only evidence that Ms. Camilleri has this condition is reported pain, which is subjective. None of the other diagnostic criteria are present. If Ms. Camilleri has some type of chronic pain, it is not from the work events in issue. ,
(Internal citations omitted; emphasis in original.)
[¶45] It should also be noted that this was a medically contested case heard by a panel of the Medical Commission. The panel members in this case included three physicians, two of whom were board certified. "The role of the Medical Commission is to resolve medically contested issues through the professional expertise of [healthcare] providers. The Commission's role includes determining the weight to be given to medical opinion testimony, and will not be reweighed upon review." Hurley v. PDQ Transport, Inc., 6 P.3d 134, 138 (Wyo.2000) (citation omitted). The Medical Commission is not obligated to accept the findings of a medical expert if, in their expertise, the Commission determines that the factual basis for the medical opinion is not eredible or reliable. Id. The findings of the Commission in this case demonstrate that it did not ignore Dr. Randolph's testimony. It fully considered his testimony, but found his opinion was not credible. The Commission's findings were not clearly erroneous and were supported by substantial evidence.
[¶46] As a final note, I also take exeeption to the majority's harsh criticism of the Commission for mentioning Dr. Randolph's potential financial interest in the outcome as a credibility factor. Arguably, this finding is not supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Randolph was never specifically *68asked if his medical bills had been paid and the Claimant testified that she was seeking "reimbursement" for medical bills that she, or her insurance company, had paid. It should be noted, however, that the financial interest of a witness in the outcome of a case is relevant to determining the bias of the witness.
Nor is it to be disputed that the court in its discretion may allow counsel to cross-examine an expert witness as to the amount he has received, is to receive, or expects to receive for treatment, examination or testifying, for such information has a possible bearing upon the witness's impartiality, credibility and interest in the result. Grutski v. Kline, 352 Pa. 401, 43 A.2d 142 [1945]; Commonwealth v. Simmons, 361 Pa. 391, 65 A.2d 353 [1949]; Duffy v. Griffith, 134 Pa.Super. 447, 4 A.2d 170 [1939]; 70 C.J. 1158, pages 954, 955.
McNenar v. New York, C. & S.L.R. Co., 20 F.R.D. 598, 600 (D.Pa.1957). In any event, it is obvious that the Commission did not rely on this credibility factor to justify a total disregard of Dr. Randolph's testimony. Seq, eg., Glaze v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 102, ¶ 29, 214 P.3d 228, 235 (Wyo.2009).