 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance2/20/2001
W.R.A.P 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Fremont County The Honorable D. Terry Rogers, Judge
[ ] Appellant Markus Wesaw was denied worker compensation benefits after the hearing examiner found that he had filed an untimely written report of injury. The district court certified his petition for review to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09. We hold that the hearing examiner did not properly apply applicable law to determine the date of compensable injury and remand for hearing.
ISSUES
[ ] Wesaw presents these issues for our review:
Was it reversible error for the hearing examiner to dismiss Appellant's claims for worker's compenation benefits?
Under the facts of this case, this issue includes the following sub-issues:
Was Appellees' contention that Appellant failed to file a timely injury report properly raised? Should this even have been an issue in the case?
If the issue of late filing of the injury report was properly raised by Appellees (which is denied by Appellant), was there a late filing of Appellant's injury report?
If the issue of late filing of the injury report was properly raised by Appellees and if there was a late filing (both of which are denied by Appellant), was it excused?
If the issue of late filing of the injury report was properly raised by Appellees, if there was a late filing of the injury report and if such late filing was not excused (all of which are denied by Appellant), was the presumption of denial, created by the late filing, overcome by clear and convincing evidence of a lack of prejudice to Appellees in investigating the injury and in monitoring medical treatment?
Appellee Division rephrases the issues as:
I. Was the order granting judgment as a matter of law supported by substantial evidence, within the Hearing Examiner's discretion, and in accordance with law?
A. Did the Employee receive adequate notice of the issues addressed at the hearing?
B. Was the Employee's injury report untimely? C. Did the Employee fail to rebut the presumption of denial?
D. Was the decision not to apply equitable estoppel proper?
II. If the Court reverses, should it remand for an automatic award of benefits?
Appellee Quality Maintenance presents these issues:
Whether the Hearing Examiner's Denial of Benefits, based upon the Employee/Claimant failure to timely file his injury report within the ten day statutory period as prescribed by W.S. §27- 14-502(c), was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law?
A. Was the Employee/Claimant afforded due process of the law and was he on notice that the issue of late filing was an issue?
B. Did the Employee/Claimant fail to timely file his injury report within the 10 day period prescribed by W.S. §27-14- 502(c)?
C. Did the Employee/ Claimant fail to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the employer or division by clear and convincing evidence?
D. Did the Employee/Claimant fail to show substantial evidence supporting equitable estoppel?
E. If the Court should reverse, should the Court remand to allow a hearing in order for the Employer and Division to present their evidence, rather than remand for an automatic award of benefits?
FACTS
[ ] Wesaw was exposed to sulfuric acid on October 15, 1998. His supervisor, Nels Carlson, entered the room soon after and was told of the incident. Carlson told Wesaw that he would report the incident to workers' compensation but reassured him that no perm
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|