 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan v. Olsten Temporary Services2/8/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge
The only issue to be resolved in this case, in which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ruled that Wesley E. Morgan (Morgan) had failed to meet his burden of proof, is the claim that the decision of the hearing examiner was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Morgan sought worker's compensation benefits for a job-related injury causing him to suffer spondylolysis, as well as spondylolisthesis, at the L5-S1 area in his spine. In the contested case hearing, Morgan relied upon his testimony and the testimony of his treating physician, an orthopedic surgeon, to sustain his claim that his injury was work related. The parties endeavor to debate the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence, but the problem must be resolved under the arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law provision in the statute because the ruling that Morgan failed to meet his burden of proof implicates the ultimate decision of the OAH, not the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain findings of fact. We hold that the decision of the hearing examiner was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The Order Affirming Office of Administrative Hearings' Order Denying Benefits entered in the district court is affirmed.
In the Brief of Appellant, filed on behalf of Morgan, the issues are spelled out in this way:
"I.
What is the scope of review in judicial review of administrative action in Wyoming workers' compensation cases?
II.
In view of the presence in the record of uncontroverted medical opinion that claimant's condition was related to an injury in the course of employment, is the agency decision supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, or is it arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion?"
The issue presented on appeal is articulated in this manner in the Brief of Appellee, filed on behalf of Olsten Temporary Services (Olsten):
"Was there substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's finding that Wesley Morgan did not meet his burden of proving he was injured on the job and therefore eligible for worker[']s compensation benefits?"z
In Pederson v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo. 1997), we summarized our process for reviewing a decision of the OAH when it rules that the injured worker has failed to meet the burden of proof assigned to him:
"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 " rbitrary, 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 t
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.
|
|