 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worker's Compensation Claim of Hamilton v. State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.2/27/2001
W.R.A.P 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Big Horn County The Honorable Hunter Patrick, Judge
[ ] The primary issue in this appeal is whether a worker compensation claimant's inconsistent reports of the cause of her injury entitle a hearing examiner to determine an injury is not work-related. We affirm the hearing examiner's decision.
ISSUES
[ ] Appellant Nancy L. Hamilton presents this single issue for our review:
Did the Wyoming Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise unlawfully in the meaning of the Wyoming workers' compensation law and contrary to substantial evidence when it entered, on December 30, 1999, a final order, denying appellant, Nancy L. Hamilton's claim for workers' compensation benefits in ruling that she had not satisfied her burden of proof in establishing that she had suffered a work-related accident on July 14, 1999, while employed by Crazy Woman Safety Enterprises, Inc.?
The Division contends that the issues are:
I. The Employee gave several accounts about the onset of her injury, and the Hearing Examiner denied benefits because he did not believe the injury occurred at work.
A. Should the Court defer to the Hearing Examiner's credibility determination?
B. Did the Employee fail to prove a material aggravation?
C. Was the second compensable injury rule unavailable?
FACTS
[ ] Hamilton was employed as a flagger for Crazy Woman Safety Enterprises. Hamilton claims that on July 14, 1999, while lifting a barrel, she injured her back. She told her supervisor, left wo rk at 12:30 p.m. and rested the remainder of the day. The next morning her pain was severe, and she was taken to the emergency room. She was admitted to the hospital, administered pain relievers overnight, and discharged the next day. Tests showed that she had a herniated disc. Her timecard on the date of discharge shows that she worked a ten-hour day and worked a normal schedule after that.
[ ] On July 21, 1999, she filed a claim for injury. The employer objected to her claim that she had suffered a work-related injury, and the Division denied benefits. At a hearing, the evidence showed that Hamilton filled out timecards on a daily basis that required her to mark a box "yes" or "no" if she had been harassed or injured. All of her timecards from July 14 through July 22 were marked "no." Although the date of the timecard marked July 14 was altered, Hamilton testified that she had initialed the "no" box to indicate that she had not been harassed.
[ ] The employer produced evidence that Hamilton had begun seeing a chiropractor for lower back pain on May 12, 1999, and reported that her pain had begun on May 4 while tying her shoe at home. Hamilton saw the same chiropractor on July 13, 1999. The doctor's notes indicate that the visit was for left lower back pain that radiated into the left leg at the highest possible pain rating; however, Hamilton claimed that it was another visit to correct pain in her hip that she had been experiencing since May 4.
[ ] Hamilton's co-worker testified that he heard her express pain on July 14, and she told him that she had hurt her back. He did the rest of the lifting that day and observed that she appeared to be in pain and was unable to lift barrels. Hamilton argued that the employer altered the date of the timecard to produce one showing that she had initialed "no" to the question of whether she had been injured for that day. The employer contended no evidence showed that it had altered the timecard. It pointed to medical reports in the record showing th
Page 1 2 3 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|