Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div.

Decision Date12 January 2012
Docket NumberNo. S–11–0121.,S–11–0121.
Citation268 P.3d 1038,2012 WY 6
PartiesScott A. DAVENPORT, Appellant (Petitioner/Claimant), v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court


Representing Appellant: George Santini of Ross, Ross & Santini, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

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

KITE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] In 20082009, Scott Davenport sought worker's compensation benefits for medical care and surgery to fuse vertebrae in his lumbar spine. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied benefits on the basis that his 20082009 back problems were not caused by work related injuries he suffered in 1984 and 1985. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, ruling that the procedure was necessitated by a preexisting congenital defect in Mr. Davenport's lumbar spine and not his prior work related injuries. Mr. Davenport petitioned for judicial review and the district court affirmed the OAH decision. He then appealed to this Court claiming the OAH erred by failing to recognize that an aggravation of a preexisting congenital defect is compensable and misapplied the second compensable injury rule.

[¶ 2] We affirm.


[¶ 3] Mr. Davenport presents the following issues for this Court's consideration:

1. Did the Hearing Officer err by not recognizing that a material aggravation of a preexisting or congenital condition is a compensable injury and that the delayed effects of such aggravation are also compensable?

2. Was the second compensable injury rule misapplied by the Hearing Officer?

The Division states the issue more generally:

Did substantial evidence support the OAH's decision that Davenport failed to prove a causal connection between his 1984 and 1985 work injuries and his 2008 lumbar symptoms and bi-level fusion surgery?


[¶ 4] Mr. Davenport has a long history of back problems. In 1984, he was employed by Carbon County Coal Company as an underground mechanic in its coal mine near Hanna, Wyoming, when he and another employee attempted to move a 500 pound hydraulic cylinder. The other employee dropped his end of the cylinder and Mr. Davenport injured his lower back while trying to continue to hold his end. Mr. Davenport was evaluated by orthopedic surgeon, Robert Curnow, M.D., who ordered x-rays, which were normal, and diagnosed a lumbosacral sprain. Mr. Davenport returned to work a short time later. The Division granted workers' compensation benefits for that injury.

[¶ 5] On April 8, 1985, Mr. Davenport was at work for Carbon County Coal Company when he fell and injured his lower back again. He was carrying an oxygen tank on his shoulder and walking in mud, when his feet became tangled in some wires. Imaging tests of Mr. Davenport's lumbar spine showed a defect in the bone at L4, known as a pars defect. Dr. Curnow stated in a letter to Mr. Davenport's employer that the defect in his spine was “most likely congenital but has predisposed him to chronic back pain.” Dr. Curnow did not believe that Mr. Davenport could continue to perform the heavy lifting required by his job unless he had surgery, so he recommended surgery or employment retraining. Mr. Davenport chose to retrain as a welder. Mr. Davenport continued to see Dr. Curnow for approximately two years. At Mr. Davenport's final appointment with Dr. Curnow in 1987, he was “progressing well,” was not doing any heavy lifting and was not on any medication. Mr. Davenport was awarded benefits for the 1985 injury; however, the Division did not make any benefit payments after March 31, 1989.

[¶ 6] Over the years, Mr. Davenport suffered several other injuries. In 1992, he was injured when a chain hit him in the chest and leg. He was also injured in 1995 when a pulley fell on his head while working as a welder. He underwent neck surgery as a result of that injury. In 2001, Mr. Davenport had an ATV accident, where he landed on his right shoulder and back. He did not report any specific low back or leg pain at that time.

[¶ 7] In 2004, Mr. Davenport was involved in a motor vehicle accident and again injured his back. X-rays showed an [a]bnormal appearance of the lumbar spine with Grade I spondylolisthesis L4 on L5....” Spondylolisthesis is a misalignment of the lumbar vertebrae with one of the vertebrae (in this case L4) moving forward over the lower vertebrae (L5). Spondylolisthesis occurs when a person has a pars defect, which allows the forward movement of the vertebrae. The grade describes the amount of movement, with the alignment getting progressively worse from Grade I to Grade IV.

[¶ 8] In November 2008, Mr. Davenport went to see neurosurgeon Debra Steele, M.D. with a complaint of lower back pain. Dr. Steele ordered tests which showed Mr. Davenport had a L4 pars defect with Grade II L4 on L5 spondyloslisthesis.1 Dr. Steele recommended surgery, and Mr. Davenport requested workers' compensation benefits, claiming that his surgery was a direct result of his 1984/1985 work related injuries. The Division denied his claim and he requested a contested case hearing. Despite the denial of his claim, Dr. Steele performed fusion surgery on Mr. Davenport at L4, L5 and S1.

[¶ 9] At the hearing, the OAH reviewed Dr. Curnow's medical records and deposition, which was taken as part of Mr. Davenport's request for benefits from the 1985 injury; Dr. Steele's medical records and deposition; medical records from various complaints and injuries between 1986 and 2008; and an independent medical examination (IME) performed by neurosurgeon Paul Williams, M.D. Mr. Davenport and Dr. Williams testified at the contested case hearing. The hearing examiner issued his decision, generally concluding that the evidence established Mr. Davenport's pars defect and spondolylisthesis were congenital, he had failed to prove his 2008 back problems and 2009 surgery were the result of his 1984/1985 work related injuries and upholding the Division's denial of benefits. Mr. Davenport petitioned the district court for review of the OAH decision, and that court affirmed. He then appealed to this Court.


[¶ 10] When considering an appeal from a district court's review of an administrative agency's decision, we treat the case as if it had come directly from the administrative agency, without giving any deference to the district court's decision. Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2011 WY 14, ¶ 10, 247 P.3d 845, 848 (Wyo.2011); Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 554, 557 (Wyo.2008). Our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16–3–114(c) (LexisNexis 2011):

(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:

(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(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.

[¶ 11] Under § 16–3–114(c), we review the agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561. Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bush v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2005 WY 120, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d 176, 179 (Wyo.2005) (citation omitted). ‘Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the record, we can discern a rational premise for those findings.’ Kenyon, ¶ 11, 247 P.3d at 849, quoting Bush, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d at 179.

[¶ 12] With regard to an agency determination that the employee/claimant did not satisfy his burden of proof, we have said:

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. 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, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d at 561 (citations omitted). We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo, and will affirm only if the agency's conclusions are in accordance with the law.” Kenyon, ¶ 13, 247 P.3d at 849, quoting Moss v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2010 WY 66, ¶ 11, 232 P.3d 1, 4 (Wyo.2010). See also, Dale, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 561–62.


[¶ 13] The hearing examiner's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Caudill v. CSX Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2013
    ...was correct in its finding since both the 2005 x-ray and the 2008 MRI showed anterolisthesis. See Davenport v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety, 268 P.3d 1038, 1041 n. 1 (2012) (neurosurgeon explains that “anterolisthesis and spondylolisthesis are synonymous.”); Brannon v. Astrue, No.......
  • State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Hartmann (In re Hartmann)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 6, 2015
    ...injury for which worker's compensation benefits are being sought.” Hoffman, ¶ 9, 291 P.3d at 301, quoting Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2012 WY 6, ¶ 21, 268 P.3d 1038, 1044 (Wyo.2012). The causal connection requirement is satisfied upon showing that it is mor......
  • Mahoney v. City of Gillette
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 6, 2019
    ...Servs., Unemployment Ins. Comm’n , 2014 WY 119, ¶ 7, 334 P.3d 1231, 1234 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Div. , 2012 WY 6, ¶ 12, 268 P.3d 1038, 1042 (Wyo. 2012) ). [¶9] "Constitutional challenges present issues of law that we review d......
  • Leavitt v. State (In re Worker's Comp. Claim of)
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 12, 2013
    ...it could reasonably conclude as it did based on all of the evidence before it. Hoffman, ¶ 7, 291 P.3d at 301;Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2012 WY 6, ¶ 12, 268 P.3d 1038, 1041–42 (Wyo.2012). [¶ 21] A hearing examiner is not bound to accept and may disregard t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT