In re Baldwin
| Decision Date | 10 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. S-07-0284.,S-07-0284. |
| Citation | 196 P.3d 1087,2008 WY 125 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Carl L. BALDWIN. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, Appellant (Petitioner), v. Carl L. Baldwin, Appellee (Respondent). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.
Representing Appellee: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] Carl L. Baldwin (Baldwin) suffered a work-related injury and temporary total disability benefits were approved. After receiving a permanent partial impairment rating, Baldwin applied for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.1 The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied benefits on the ground that he could return to his previous employment. A contested case hearing was held, after which the hearing examiner reversed the Division's decision and awarded Baldwin PPD benefits. The district court affirmed and the Division has appealed to this Court. We conclude the hearing examiner's decision awarding PPD benefits to Baldwin was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.
[¶ 2] The Division presents two issues for review:
1. Whether the hearing examiner's decision granting permanent partial disability benefits to Baldwin is in accordance with the law?
2. Whether substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner's decision granting permanent partial disability benefits to Baldwin?
[¶ 3] On August 11, 2003, Baldwin suffered a work-related injury to his lower back. He was examined by Dr. Ludwig Kroner and diagnosed with left-sided radiculopathy with severe muscle spasm and neurological deficit. After Baldwin was unresponsive to conservative treatment, Dr. Kroner performed a left-sided L5-S1 laminotomy, discectomy, and nerve root decompression on Baldwin's lower back. Ten weeks after the surgery, Dr. Kroner examined Baldwin and found that he was able to walk on his heels and toes, squat, and bend forward to his ankles. Baldwin reported "a little bit" of pain in the left side of his lower back and buttock, but no radicular pain. Dr. Kroner released Baldwin to work on December 15, 2003.
[¶ 4] At the Division's request, on February 11, 2004, Dr. Paul E. Ruttle performed an Orthopedic Medical Evaluation of Baldwin. Dr. Ruttle reviewed Baldwin's medical records, conducted an interview, and performed a physical examination. Dr. Ruttle concluded that Baldwin had suffered an 11% whole person impairment. Dr. Ruttle advised that Baldwin could return to work as an oilfield laborer, but advised against lifting greater than 60 pounds on a one-time basis, or 40 pounds on a repetitive basis. Dr. Ruttle submitted his report to the Division on February 20, 2004.
[¶ 5] On October 8, 2004, Baldwin submitted an application for a PPD award. On October 12, 2004, the Division issued a Final Determination denying the application on the ground that On October 25, 2004, Baldwin requested a hearing and his case was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for a contested case hearing and final determination.
[¶ 6] On April 2, 2005, Baldwin participated in a vocational assessment. The vocational evaluator concluded that jobs for which Baldwin would likely qualify, given his health restrictions and skill set, would pay between $7 to $10 per hour, with some paying higher — up to $20 per hour depending on experience. The evaluator also attached a list of potential employers. The vocational report was submitted to the Division.
[¶ 7] On January 12, 2006, the OAH held a contested case hearing. The hearing examiner issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on August 29, 2006, awarding PPD benefits to Baldwin. The Division filed a petition for review and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision on October 22, 2007. The Division filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
[¶ 8] W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) directs us to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2007) for the matters to be considered in the review of administrative action. We recently said the following with regard to the standard of review when we are required to examine the evidentiary findings of an agency:
Section 16-3-114(c)(ii) provides only one evidentiary standard of review. Under the plain language of the statute, reversal of an agency finding or action is required if it is "not supported by substantial evidence." Because contested case hearings under Wyoming's Administrative Procedures Act, are formal, trial-type proceedings, use of the substantial evidence standard for review of evidentiary matters is more in keeping with the original intent of the drafters of the administrative procedures act. 33 Fed. Prac. & Proc., Judicial Review §§ 8333, 8334.
Thus, in the interests of simplifying the process of identifying the correct standard of review and bringing our approach closer to the original use of the two standards, we hold that henceforth the substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling. When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, we will determine if substantial evidence exists to support the finding for that party by considering whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened party failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record as a whole. See, Wyo. Consumer Group v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Wyo., 882 P.2d 858, 860-61 (Wyo.1994); [Board of Trustees of Laramie County School Dist. No. 1 v.] Spiegel, 549 P.2d [1161,] 1178 [(Wyo.1976)] (). If, in the course of its decision making process, the agency disregards certain evidence and explains its reasons for doing so based upon determinations of credibility or other factors contained in the record, its decision will be sustainable under the substantial evidence test. Importantly, our review of any particular decision turns not on whether we agree with the outcome, but on whether the agency could reasonably conclude as it did, based on all the evidence before it.
Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶¶ 21-22, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo.2008).2 An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and are affirmed if they are in accordance with the law. Id., 2008 WY 84, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 562. "[W]e afford no deference to conclusions reached by the district court, but review the case as if it had come directly from the agency." Loomer v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2004 WY 47, ¶ 15, 88 P.3d 1036, 1041 (Wyo.2004).
Gray v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2008 WY 115, ¶ 5, 193 P.3d 246, 248 (Wyo.2008).
[¶ 9] The Division does not dispute that Baldwin was injured or that his injuries were work related; rather, the Division takes exception to the hearing examiner's award of PPD benefits, which action is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(i) and (iii) (LexisNexis 2007):
(h) An injured employee awarded permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a permanent disability award subject to the following terms and conditions:
(i) The injured employee is because of the injury, unable to return to employment at a wage that is at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the monthly gross earnings the employee was earning at the time of injury;
. . . .
(iii) The employee has actively sought suitable work, considering the employee's health, education, training and experience.
[¶ 10] As the above statute indicates, when awarding PPD benefits, the hearing examiner is required to determine whether a claimant has actively sought suitable work. See Hermosillo v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2002 WY 175, ¶ 9, 58 P.3d 924, 927 (Wyo.2002). We have said that Abeyta v. State ex. rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2004 WY 50, ¶ 11, 88 P.3d 1072, 1076 (Wyo.2004)
[¶ 11] The Division argues that the decision that Baldwin actively sought suitable work was not supported by substantial evidence, as the hearing examiner failed to make findings of basic fact on this issue. We disagree. With regard to Baldwin's efforts to seek employment, the hearing officer made the following findings:
3. The Claimant testified that at the time of the injury he was making $17.00 an hour. He was working 21 days on and then 7 days off, 8 hours a day. He has since the injury sought employment. He worked in a carpentry shop for 5 months and was terminated. He sought other employment where he was working as a maintenance man at $14.00 an hour doing light duty work. He also testified that he had 10 years of carpenter experience with the union. However, he also testified that there are no union jobs that would meet his limitations.
The evidence presented at the contested case hearing supports the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bollinger v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs, Worker's Comp. Div.
... ... [12] "[T]he substantial evidence standard will be applied any time we review an evidentiary ruling." Dale , 22, 188 P.3d at 561. In Baldwin , we noted:If the hearing examiner determines that the burdened [claimant] failed to meet his burden of proof, we will decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the agencys decision to reject the evidence offered by the burdened party by considering whether that conclusion was ... ...