 |
 |
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
at Hamilton's injury had been suffered months earlier at home and was not work-related.
[ ] The hearing examiner found that, on July 15, 1999, Hamilton reported to the emergency room physician that her pain had begun two months earlier while leaning over to place cones on the highway. Despite her testimony at the hearing that she was seeing the chiropractor for other reasons, the chiropractor's notes indicated he was seeing her for lower back pain that was progressively worsening. The hearing examiner also found that on July 21, 1999, Hamilton reported to a physician's assistant that she had been experiencing the lower back pain for two months after placing cones on the highway and stated that the pain had never really resolved in that time. She had an acute worsening of symptoms on July 15 that required admission to the hospital.
[ ] The hearing examiner concluded that Hamilton's statements to her doctors contradicted her testimony that she suddenly experienced the onset of different symptoms following a work-related injury. It concluded that the chiropractor's deposition testimony--that since May of 1999, he had been treating Hamilton for lower back pain symptoms similar to what she now complained of and she had stated then that the symptoms were by an injury suffered while tying her shoe at home--was significant. These several discrepancies and observation of her demeanor led the hearing examiner to find that Hamilton's credibility was suspect and conclude that she had failed to prove she had suffered a work-related injury on July 14, 1999.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
[ ] When reviewing a hearing examiner's decision that a worker's compensation claimant has failed to meet the burden of proof, we apply the following principles:
A claimant for worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing. Martinez v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. 917 P.2d 619, 621 (Wyo. 1996). When an agency decides that the party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, the case is reviewed under the "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law" language of Wyo. Stat. ยง 16-3-114(c)(ii) (1990). City of Casper v. Utech, 895 P.2d 449, 452 (Wyo. 1995). On appeal the complainant . . . has the burden of proving arbitrary administrative action. Knight v. Environmental Quality Council of State of Wyo., 805 P.2d 268 (Wyo. 1991); Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, 527 P.2d 432, 439 (Wyo. 1974); Marathon Oil Co. v. Welch, 379 P.2d 832, 836 (Wyo. 1963); Whitesides v. Council of City of Cheyenne, 78 Wyo. 80, 319 P.2d 520, 526 (1957). The agency, as the trier of fact, is charged with weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses. Utech, 895 P.2d at 451, and cases therein cited. The deference normally accorded to the findings of fact by a trial court is extended to the administrative agency, and the agency's decision as to the facts will not be overturned unless it is clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Wyoming Steel & Fab., Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 (Wyo. 1994). Pederson v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo. 1997); see also, Nissen v. Cheyenne Frontier Days, Inc., 983 P.2d 722, 724-25 (Wyo. 1999); Carrillo v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 987 P.2d 690, 692-93 (Wyo. 1999).
[ ] On appeal, Hamilton contends that the hearing examiner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to consider that an x-ray taken on May 12, 1999, by her chiropract
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.
|
|