 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beitel v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division12/7/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County The Honorable D. Terry Rogers, Judge
Appellant Gary Beitel (the employee) applied for worker=s compensation benefits, and the hearing examiner denied his claim. The employee petitioned the district court for a review of the hearing examiner=s decision, and that court affirmed. The employee then perfected his appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
We affirm.
ISSUES
The employee presents the following issues for our review:
1. Did the Hearing Examiner err when he found that Mr. Beitel was required to notify his employer and the Division about his back condition on the date of occurrence and not the day of diagnosis?
2. If the injury was apparent on the date of occurrence, did Mr. Beitel overcome the presumption of a late filing when his employer testified he knew of the injury and was not prejudiced by Mr. Beitel=s filing for workers= compensation benefits after his doctor diagnosed a herniated disc?
3. Is the Division required to present evidence to support its claim of prejudice for a late filing after the Employee/Claimant demonstrates there are no facts to support prejudice?
FACTS
The employee was a heavy equipment operator for the Sweetwater County Road and Bridge Department in Rock Springs. He was attempting to change the steel blades on a motor grader on October 9, 1996, when he felt a pull in his back and pain in his right buttock. The employee told some of his co-employees that day about the incident, but he did not report the injury to his supervisor until October 17, 1996.
In January and February of 1997, the employee received treatment from a chiropractor for pain in his right buttock and leg. His pain worsened, and he sought treatment from a medical doctor on March 14, 1997. Medical tests revealed that the employee had a herniated disc in his back, and he underwent surgery to repair the condition.
The employee filed his injury report with the Wyoming Workers= Safety & Compensation Division (the division) on March 18, 1997. The division denied the employee=s claim for worker=s compensation benefits on the ground that he did not file his injury report within the statutory time period. The employee objected to the division=s determination, and the division referred the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
A hearing examiner held a contested case hearing and subsequently ruled that the employee=s injury report was untimely and that he had not overcome the presumption that his claim should be denied. The employee petitioned the district court for a review of the hearing examiner=s decision, and the district court affirmed. The employee appealed to this Court.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999) governs judicial review of administrative decisions. W.R.A.P. 12.09(a); Everheart v. S & L Industrial, 957 P.2d 847, 851 (Wyo. 1998). We review an administrative agency=s findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. DeWall v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers= Safety and Compensation Division, 960 P.2d 502, 503 (Wyo. 1998). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency=s Conclusions. Id. In reviewing an agency=s decision that a party did not meet his burden of proof, we determine whether the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Helm v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers= Safety and Compensation Division, 982 P.2d 1236, 1240 (Wyo. 1999); Pederson v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worke
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|