Boylen v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Comp. Div.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Docket Number: S-21-0200
• Citation: 2022 WY 39
• Parties: RHONDA BOYLEN, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2022 WY 39

RHONDA BOYLEN, Appellant (Petitioner),
v.
STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).

No. S-21-0200

Supreme Court of Wyoming

March 22, 2022

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County The Honorable Richard L. Lavery, Judge

1

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Mark Klaassen, Deputy Attorney General; Peter Howard, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Holli J. Welch, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS ^[*] , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

2

BOOMGAARDEN, JUSTICE

[¶1] Rhonda Boylen, a sales associate at Flaming Gorge Harley-Davidson, suffered a lower back injury the evening of May 6, 2019, while at home, following two days off work. She was standing in her kitchen and turned slightly to the left when her back "exploded." When she sought medical treatment the next day, she attributed her injury to moving heavy motorcycles at work. She filed a claim with the Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division (Division) for benefits related to her May 6 injury. The Division denied her request. Following a contested case hearing the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concluded that Ms. Boylen did not satisfy her burden of proof. On appeal Ms. Boylen argues she proved that her May 6 injury was a second compensable injury, but OAH failed to consider it as such. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Ms. Boylen raises a single issue, which we rephrase as two:

I. Did OAH erroneously fail to apply the second compensable injury rule

II. Was there substantial evidence to support OAH's conclusion that Ms. Boylen failed to prove her May 6 injury was caused by the May 3 injury?

FACTS

[¶3] The facts are straightforward and not in dispute.

[¶4] Ms. Boylen, a sales associate at Flaming Gorge Harley-Davidson, was moving a heavy motorcycle on May 3, 2019, when her back grabbed and her legs felt weak. She did not report this incident to her employer. Nor did she report the incident while at work the following day. May 5 and 6 were Ms. Boylen's days off. At about 9:00 p.m. on May 6, she was standing in her kitchen and turned slightly to the left, away from the sink, when she felt excruciating pain. She sought medical treatment the following day from chiropractor, Dr. Ty Quickenden, D.C. Due to her extreme pain Dr. Quickenden stopped his examination and referred her to Red Desert Insta-Care. Over the next four months, Ms. Boylen was treated for radiating back pain, numbness, and tingling, by Dr. Quickenden; Alliance Physical Therapy; and Drs. Eric Harris, M.D. and Michael Kaplan, M.D., at Premier Bone & Joint Centers.

[¶5] Ms. Boylen filed a report of injury on May 16, 2019, stating that she suffered a work injury on May 6. Her report stated, "I was moving a heavy bike to a location, when I felt

3

my lower back grab and went weak."^[1] The Division denied Ms. Boylen her requested benefits on June 18, 2019, after receiving and reviewing a copy of her medical records and job description. Ms. Boylen timely objected, and the Division referred the matter to OAH.

[¶6] OAH conducted a contested case hearing by video on April 30, 2020. Ms. Boylen relied on her own hearing and deposition testimony, and the deposition testimony of Dr. Quickenden. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, OAH generally concluded that Ms. Boylen "failed to prove she suffered a compensable injury as that term is defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)[ ]."^[2] It more specifically found and concluded that "the medical evidence and [Ms.] Boylen's testimony fell short and was not persuasive", and that "Dr. Quickenden simply did not provide sufficient testimony to connect the May 3, 2019 and May 6, 2019 incidents." Ms. Boylen appealed first to the district court, which affirmed the OAH decision, and now to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] We review the appeal of an administrative action "as if it had come directly from the agency, giving no deference to the district court's decision." Mirich v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. Sch. Dist. Two, 2021 WY 32, ¶ 15, 481 P.3d 627, 632 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Sweetwater Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Goetz, 2017 WY 91, ¶ 23, 399 P.3d 1231, 1235 (Wyo. 2017)). The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, § 16-3-114(c) governs our review of the agency's decision:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

4

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;

(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2021).

[¶8] A workers' compensation claimant must prove all essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Ross v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2022 WY 11, ¶ 9, 503 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2022) (citation omitted). Where, as here, both parties submit evidence, we apply the substantial evidence test to fact findings. Id. (citation omitted). And when reviewing an agency's decision that a claimant did not satisfy her 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, Laramie County School Dist. No. 1 v. Spiegel, 549 P.2d 1161, 1178 (Wyo. 1976) (discussing the definition of substantial evidence as "contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence"). 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

...