Court Opinion

ID: 9776199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:23:22.779409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:04.699628
License: Public Domain

*521BURKE, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom VOIGT, Justice, joins.
[¶23] I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the burden of proof was on the Division "to demonstrate that the treatment Lane-Walter received was not reasonable and not medically necessary." (Emphasis in original.) I am unable to join in that determination for several reasons.
[¶24] First, the issue was not raised by Claimant at the hearing level, on appeal with the district court, or in the appeal to this Court. The Commission, in its Order, specifically determined that Claimant had the burden of proof. Claimant has never challenged that determination. Because the issue has never been raised, the Division has had no opportunity to present its position regarding the proper allocation of the burden of proof. Compare Guier v. Teton County Hosp. Dist., 2011 WY 31, 248 P.3d 623 (Wyo.2011) (where we considered the proper allocation of the burden of proof when that issue was raised at the administrative hearing and on appeal, and was adequately briefed to this Court). Claimant has never argued that the Commission applied an incorrect burden of proof. She simply asserts that she satisfied her evidentiary burden at the hearing. Because the issue has never been raised, this Court should not consider it. Duffy v. State, 780 P.2d 754, 758 (Wyo.1986) ("Under the settled authority of this court we will not consider [those] points which have not been briefed." (quoting Zanetti v. Zametti, 689 P.2d 1116, 1123 (Wyo.1984))).
[¶25] Second, placing the burden of proof on the Division conflicts with our precedent. We have steadfastly held that the claimant in a worker's compensation case bears the burden of proving all elements of her claim for benefits. See, eg., Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2011 WY 14, 121, 247 P.3d 845, 851 (Wyo.2011); Bailey v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 152, 115, 248 P.3d 953, 957 (Wyo.2010); Alphin v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 39, T17, 228 P.3d 61, 68 (Wyo.2010); Glaze v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 102, 1 18, 214 P.8d 228, 231 (Wyo.2009); Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, 135, 188 P.8d 554, 568 (Wyo.2008). We should not depart from our precedent in this case. Ms. Lane-Walter, as Claimant, had the burden of proof.
[¶26] Third, the majority cites no legal authority for switching the burden of proof to the Division. The sole justification offered is that it is appropriate "in these unusual circumstances." The specific circumstances significant to the majority's decision are not easily identified from the opinion. Is it the prior settlement agreement? The representation by a Division employee that prior authorization was not required? The evidentia-ry conflict arising from the testimony of the medical experts? All of those reasons, or just some of them? Or another reason entirely? The majority opinion provides no guidance as to what facts and cireumstances will mandate a reallocation of the burden of proof in future cases.
[¶27] Fourth, switching the burden of proof to the Division in this case will cause problems in future cases. Here, the Commission and the parties proceeded with the understanding that Claimant had the burden of proof. Accordingly, Claimant's counsel made the initial opening statement, followed by an opening statement from counsel for the Division. Claimant then presented her evidence. After Claimant rested, the Division presented its evidence. As I understand the majority opinion, this procedure was incorrect. Because the Division had the burden of proof, it should have made the initial opening statement and presented its evidence first. Prior to this decision, in similar cases, the parties and the Commission understood who had the burden of proof. Now, because of this decision, there will be doubt. Are the facts of the next case "unusual" enough to justify switching the burden to the Division? How will that decision be made? When should it be made? In this case, the majority has apparently concluded that the decision can be made after evidence has been presented and can be based upon evidence presented at the hearing. That procedure is simply unworkable. It is essential that the parties and the Commission understand prior to *522commencement of the hearing which party bears the burden of proof. Ex post facto assignment of the burden of proof to a particular party based upon evidence presented at the hearing will only cause confusion.