 |
 |
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
or failed to disclose a disc herniation and none was present when she presented to the chiropractor on July 13, 1999. Hamilton also contends that the hearing examiner failed to consider whether the facts presented a second compensable injury or a material aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
[ ] Having examined the entire record, we begin by upholding the hearing examiner's decision to believe the chiroprac tor's deposition testimony that he was treating Hamilton for lower back pain symptoms. Hamilton's testimony that she was not being treated for lower back pain directly contradicted the chiropractor's testimony. Credibility determinations are the unique province of the hearing examiner, and we eschew re-weighing those conclusions. Carrillo, 987 P.2d at 693. Although Hamilton contends that upholding the credibility determination is contrary to our decision in Ikenberry v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 5 P.3d 799 (Wyo. 2000), this case does not pose the same concerns as Ikenberry where irrelevant inconsistencies led to an irrational finding that the claimant had not suffered a work-related injury. Id. at 809. Ikenberry distinguished between the facts it was considering and a proper denial of benefits because of contradictions by the claimant. Id. Specifically, it found that when the claimant's benefit claim is based on a report of injury caused by work activities and the immediate onset of pain symptoms, and this claim directly contradicts statements made to doctors that the pain could not be attributed to any work-related episode and was reported as progressive over a period of time, denial of benefits is proper. Id. at 810. That situation is very similar to Hamilton's. Her statements to her chiropractor indicated that she suffered an injury at home resulting in lower back pain and began treatment for it in May 1999. She received another treatment on July 13, 1999, for the same symptoms. Her symptoms on July 15 that required hospitalization were not different. The hearing examiner's decision that these inconsistencies resulted in Hamilton's failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a work-related injury is affirmed.
[ ] Hamilton next contends that she could have been awarded benefits for a material aggravation of a pre-existing condition. She had the burden to prove the material aggravation. The evidence showed that her symptoms in May were the same as those she suffered on July 15 which subsided and allowed her to be discharged on the July 16 and work a ten-hour day that same day. We find that the hearing examiner's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
[ ] Finally, Hamilton contends that her statements to the physician's assistant on July 21 indicate that she had suffered a compensable injury in May placing cones on the highway and suffered another on July 14 while lifting the barrels. The hearing examiner determined that Hamilton reported to her chiropractor in May that her symptoms were caused by the shoe-tying incident which is not a first compensable injury. The hearing examiner's decision not to consider this a second compensable injury is supported by substantial evidence.
[ ] We affirm the order denying benefits.
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.
|
|