Bagshaw, Matter of

• Decision Date: 05 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-248,87-248
• Citation: 753 P.2d 1044
• Parties: In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Leslie BAGSHAW. Leslie BAGSHAW, Appellant (Employee-Claimant), v. CIRCLE H OILFIELD SERVICE, Appellee (Employer-Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 1044

753 P.2d 1044

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Leslie BAGSHAW Leslie BAGSHAW, Appellant (Employee-Claimant), v. CIRCLE H OILFIELD SERVICE, Appellee (Employer-Defendant).

No. 87-248.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 5, 1988.

Timothy O. Beppler of Vehar, Beppler, Jacobson, Lavery & Rose, P.C., Evanston, for appellant.

Dennis W. Lancaster of Phillips, Lancaster & Thomas, P.C., Evanston, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying benefits to appellant Leslie Bagshaw under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, §§ 27-14-101 through 27-14-804, W.S.1977.

We affirm.

Appellant raises a solitary issue:

"WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL DETERMINATION THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH APPELLEE?"

On February 6, 1987, appellant filed an employee's injury report claiming that he had injured his lower back on December 3, 1986, while he was employed by appellee Circle H Oilfield Service, and he subsequently applied for temporary total disability benefits, medical expenses, and other benefits. On March 30, 1987, appellee filed a written objection to the award of any worker's compensation benefits to appellant. Appellant responded to this objection, and, after completion of discovery, the matter came on for hearing before the trial court on August 28, 1987. On September 14, 1987, the trial court entered a judgment which stated in applicable part:

"The Court, after considering the evidence presented at the trial, and having considered all facts pertaining to this issue, does find generally in favor of the Employer/Contestant, and finds that the injury complained of by the Employee/Claimant did not arise out of and was not in the course of his employment while employed by the Employer/Contestant. The Court therefore does find generally in favor for the Employer/Contestant and against the Employee/Claimant.

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment shall be entered in behalf of the Employer/Contestant against the Employee/Claimant and it being ordered that the Employee/Claimant shall not be entitled to any benefits under the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Law since the injury complained of by the Employee/Claimant- /Claimant did not arise out of and was not in the course of his employment with the Employer/Contestant, Circle H Oilfield Service."

This appeal followed.

Recently, in Leonard v. McDonalds of Jackson Hole, Wyo., 746 P.2d 1261, 1262 (1987), quoting from State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division v. Lewis, Wyo., 739 P.2d 1225, 1226 (1987), we enunciated the standard of review which we apply when we are presented with a question of sufficiency of the evidence:

" 'In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact by the trial court, this court will examine only the evidence favorable to the prevailing party and give to it every favorable inference. When examined under this standard, if there is substantial evidence to support the factual findings by the trial court, its order will not be disturbed.' "

We also stated that, "in a worker's compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proof on the essential elements...