Court Opinion

ID: 9613660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:19:02.37435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:30.946775
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority, with limited discussion, dismisses the hearing examiner’s factual finding that Dougherty failed to link his injury to his employment with J.W. Williams, Inc. (Williams). Under the Worker’s Compensation Act, an injury “means any harmful change in the human organism * * W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xi). The burden is on the injured claimant to establish every essential element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Hohnholt v. Basin Electric Power Co-op., 784 P.2d 233, 235 (Wyo.1989). Dougherty, as the claimant, therefore had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his “injury” arose out of and during the course of his employment. See Hohn-holt.
After a review of the evidence, the hearing examiner found that Dougherty failed to meet this burden. The majority conducts its own review of the evidence and finds that Dougherty’s injury did arise out of and during the course of his employment with Williams.
The role of the court is not to substitute its findings for those of the hearing examiner. Our role is to determine whether there is “substantial evidence” to support the factual findings of the hearing examiner. Here, the record contains substantial evidence to support the finding that Dougherty did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose from his employment with Williams. During cross-examination, Dougherty acknowledged that he was not able to point to any “activity” at work that “actually did it [injury].” Covert, the service manager for Williams, testified that Dougherty told him “that ever since that [motorcycle] accident, he had had problems with his back flaring up on occasion.”
The majority dismisses this testimony as mistaken and finds that Dougherty was “wrong in believing ” that his injury was a reoccurrence of his motorcycle accident. Based on its own independent evaluation of the evidence before the hearing examiner, the majority concludes that “[t]he injury was the result of a single brief occurrence (muscle spasm),” maj. op. at 555, and, therefore, not the result of a chronic condition. But a chronic condition may be one that ebbs and flows. Some days a chronic back may hurt, other days it may be symptomless. When it does hurt, there may be muscle spasm which is a cause of pain. The fact that the muscle spasm may have been the result of a single brief occurrence does not mean, therefore, that the hearing examiner erred. That single brief occurrence may — as the hearing examiner apparently concluded — date back to the motorcy*558cle accident and may not be due to his employment with Williams.
. The point is that it is not the role of this court to second-guess the fact finder — and if we are going to start making our own factual findings and conclusions, perhaps it would be helpful to amend the current standard of review to reflect our new role. The evidence presented, when analyzed under the appropriate standard of review, is sufficient to affirm the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner.
I would affirm.