Bruns v. TW Services, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-292.,00-292.
• Citation: 36 P.3d 608,2001 WY 127
• Parties: In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Richard W. BRUNS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. TW SERVICES, INC., n/k/a AMFAC Parks and Resorts, Appellee (Employer/Respondent), and State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

36 P.3d 608

2001 WY 127

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of Richard W. BRUNS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. TW SERVICES, INC., n/k/a AMFAC Parks and Resorts, Appellee (Employer/Respondent), and State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, Appellee (Respondent).

No. 00-292.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 14, 2001.

Representing Appellant: George Lemich and Richard Beckwith of Greenhalgh, Beckwith, Lemich & Stith P.C., Rock Springs, WY.

Representing Appellee TW Services, Inc.: Dick L. Kahl of Kahl Law Office, Powell, WY.

Representing Appellee State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division: Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald L. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Assistant Attorney General.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant Richard Bruns applied for worker's compensation benefits alleging he suffered a heart attack caused by his work as a middle porter at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park.¹ The Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation (division) denied the claim. On appeal, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denied the claim on two grounds: (1) the claimant failed to establish his heart condition met the statutory requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(b) (LexisNexis 2001),² and (2) the claimant failed to establish a compensable work-related injury. The district court certified the petition for review to this court. We affirm the OAH's denial of benefits.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Mr. Bruns presents these issues:

I. Whether, despite the law of the case, the Office of Administrative Hearings committed an error of law in concluding that the Workers' Compensation Division had not waived its objections to the compensability of Appellant's coronary condition under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-603(b) by its failure to state this objection in its Final Determination of his claim.

II. Whether the conclusion of the Office of Administrative Hearings that the Appellant's myocardial infarction was the result of a pre-existing condition was supported by substantial evidence.

Appellee TW Services, Inc. frames the issues in the following manner:

1. Was the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings, in applying the provisions of W.S. § 27-14-603(b) proper under the circumstances of this case?

2. Irrespective of the application of W.S. § 27-14-603(b), was the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings in denying benefits to Appellant supported by substantial evidence?

Appellee State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division restates the issues:

I. Did the Hearing Examiner correctly conclude that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(b) is applicable to Appellant's case?

II. Did the Hearing Examiner correctly conclude, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(b), that Appellant failed to prove every element of his claim?

III. Was the Hearing Examiner's finding that Appellant's myocardial infarction was the result of a pre-existing condition supported by substantial evidence?

FACTS

[¶ 3] During the winter season of 1995-96, Mr. Bruns was employed by TW Services as a middle porter at its Mammoth Hot Springs facility in Yellowstone National Park. Part of his duties included cleaning four outdoor hot tubs once an hour when the tubs had been used during the preceding hour. This cleaning entailed reaching over the edge of the hot tub to the inside tub edge with the arm extended at approximately shoulder level and lightly scrubbing or wiping the scum line with a sponge. The evening temperatures at this time of year averaged around zero degrees Fahrenheit, and the tub water temperatures were approximately 102 degrees Fahrenheit.

[¶ 4] On the night of January 5, 1996, at about eleven o'clock in the evening, Mr. Bruns, who was fifty-one years of age, was cleaning the hot tubs when he experienced roughly six minutes of pain in his chest, wrist, and the right side of his jaw. After the pain subsided, he completed his work shift and went home.

[¶ 5] At six o'clock the next morning, Mr. Bruns was awakened by chest and jaw pain similar to the pain he had experienced the night before. He called an ambulance for transport to Livingston Memorial Hospital, where the emergency room physician, Dennis Noteboom, M.D., diagnosed an acute anterior myocardial infarction. In the history-and-physical-exam documentation, Dr. Noteboom noted Mr. Bruns was a periodic smoker and had a brother who died at the age of fifty due to a massive heart attack. Mr. Bruns was transferred to Deaconess Medical Center in Billings, Montana, for further evaluation by two cardiologists. These physicians conducted a cardiac catheterization with bilateral coronary angiography and placement of stents. Through this process, it was determined that Mr. Bruns had an eighty percent occlusion or blockage of the right coronary artery and a ninety-eight percent occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery.

[¶ 6] On January 25, 1996, Mr. Bruns filed a report of injury with the division. In this report, he described his injury in the following manner: "I WAS DOING HOT TUB LATE AT NIGHT AND THE TEMPERATURE WAS VERY LOW. I WENT INTO THE ROOM & PAINS WENT THROUGH THE ARMS & CHEST." In the employer section of the form, TW Services described the injury as: "Employee experienced a heart attack 1/6/96 (off duty). He was experiencing pains while working here and feels the cold temperature contributed." In the same report, TW Services objected to the claim stating, "1) No injury occurred while working. 2) No causal connection between the condition under which work was performed and [Mr. Bruns'] cardiac condition. 3) Stress claimed is not clearly unusual to or abnormal for employees in this position [middle porter] — No causative exertion."

[¶ 7] The division issued a final determination denying the claim for benefits on February 28, 1996. The stated reasons were, "The employer has objected to this injury for the reason that the injury did not occur at work. The Division is also objecting to this claim due to the fact that your coronary condition is hereditary and pre-existing." Objections to the determination were required to be filed by "affected parties" before March 25, 1996. Mr. Bruns timely filed an objection, but TW Services did not.

[¶ 8] The appeal was referred to the medical commission for hearing. The certified record filed with this court does not contain any of the medical commission's documentation. However, based on their briefs, the parties are in agreement that the medical commission heard the appeal and benefits were again denied. Mr. Bruns appealed the medical commission's denial, and the district court ultimately³ held:

1. The Medical Commission Hearing Panel did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim; consequently, its decision was void ab initio;

2. The procedure followed in this case pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-616 resulted in unconstitutional violations of due process rights by depriving the Employee Claimant of his fundamental substantive right to a fair and impartial hearing; and,

3. The Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation waived any objection to the compensability of the Employee Claimant's coronary condition pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-603(b) by failing to state this objection in its Final Determination Letter.

The district court's order remanded the claim for a rehearing by the OAH on the objections stated in the notice of final determination. No appeal was taken from this final January 11, 2000, order.

[¶ 9] In April 2000, TW Services filed both an entry of appearance and a separate objection to the award of benefits with the OAH. As the employer, TW Services objected to the award of benefits specifically contending Mr. Bruns' injury failed to meet the statutory requirements of § 27-14-603(b). Mr. Bruns filed a traverse to the objection maintaining TW Services waived its right to participate in the appeal by having failed to object to the final determination letter by March 25, 1996. He further asserted the district court's order, by either the "law of the case" doctrine or the related theory of collateral estoppel, precluded the applicability of § 27-14-603(b) from being relitigated.

[¶ 10] Prior to the June 19, 2000, OAH rehearing, the parties stipulated to the admission of the evidence, including testimony in the form of written deposition. For this reason, all the evidence was admitted at the commencement of the rehearing. Mr. Bruns was excused from appearing and did not testify in any manner, nor were any other live witnesses called to testify. Therefore, the hearing consisted of only oral argument by counsel as to the relevance and weight of the evidence, the effect of the district court's unappealed order, and, specifically, whether the standard of § 27-14-603(b) could be applied in light of that order.

[¶ 11] On July 20, 2000, the OAH issued an Order Denying Benefits holding that, despite the district court's order, § 27-14-603(b) was applicable and Mr. Bruns had failed to prove his coronary condition met the statutory requirements. The OAH further concluded, although the evidence demonstrated Mr. Bruns' underlying coronary condition predisposed him to an acute event, it did not establish the hot tub cleaning activity caused his myocardial infarction. Therefore, even if § 27-14-603(b) was not applied, Mr. Bruns did not meet his burden to prove the injury was work related. Mr. Bruns filed a petition for review of the administrative decision which the district court certified to this court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 12] An employee-claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden to prove all the statutory elements which comprise a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. City of Casper, 2001 WY 4, ¶ 6, 16 P.3d 710, ¶ 6 (Wyo.2001); ...