Padilla v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'SAFETY & COMP. DIV.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-61.,03-61.
• Citation: 2004 WY 10,84 P.3d 960
• Parties: In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Christena PADILLA, Appellant (Employee/Claimant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector/Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

84 P.3d 960

2004 WY 10

In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Christena PADILLA, Appellant (Employee/Claimant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Objector/Defendant).

No. 03-61.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 19, 2004.

Representing Appellant: Dion J. Custis, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steve Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Assistant Attorney General.

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

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Christena Padilla appeals the denial of worker's compensation benefits. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶ 2] The Appellant presents the following issue for review:

Did the district court err as a matter of law in determining that Ms. Padilla was not eligible for permanent partial disability benefits, and past and future medical expenses pursuant to § 27-14-405 and § 27-14-401, because she has not met her burden of proof to show that treatment, including surgery, for two herniated cervical discs was the result of her work-related injury?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Ms. Padilla has worked for Blue Cross-Blue Shield for over fourteen years as a microfilm technician. In July 2001, she saw her family doctor complaining of pain in her neck, radiating into her right shoulder and arm. Upon examination, Ms. Padilla was found to have two herniated cervical discs and surgical intervention was necessary. Ms. Padilla filed a claim for worker's compensation, claiming that the herniated discs were the result of the repetitive motion activities required by her employment. The Workers' Compensation Division (the Division) denied benefits because it claimed that Ms. Padilla's injuries were not related to any work activity. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Medical Commission (the Medical Commission) determined that Ms. Padilla failed to carry her burden of proof that her injury was caused by work activity. The district court affirmed the decision of the Medical Commission.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 4] Although the district court has already reviewed this case, this Court affords no deference to the findings or decision of the district court. This Court reviews the case as if it had come here directly from the agency. Judicial review of an agency decision is guided by statute. Section 16-3-114(c) provides:

(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.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003).

[¶ 5] When an appeal is from a contested case proceeding under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act in which both parties presented evidence and factual findings were made, this Court reviews the findings pursuant to § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E). This Court reviews the entire record to determine if the decision of the agency is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence.

[¶ 6] If this Court finds that the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, then we further review the decision pursuant to § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A). This Court examines the entire record to determine if the agency action was arbitrary or capricious. Under the umbrella of arbitrary and capricious actions would fall potential mistakes such as inconsistent or incomplete findings of fact or any violation of due process. An agency action will not be found to be arbitrary or capricious as long as there is some rational basis for the action. See Newman v. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 2002 WY 91, ¶¶ 7-24, 49 P.3d 163,

¶¶ 7-24 (Wyo.2002).

[¶ 7] At an administrative hearing, the claimant bears the burden of proving all essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes proving that her injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Whether an injury is work-related is a question of fact. This Court defers to the Medical Commission on issues concerning credibility and weight to be given conflicting evidence and testimony. Newman, ¶ 26; Ikenberry v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 5 P.3d 799, 802 (Wyo.2000) ("The agency, as the trier of fact, is charged with weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses.")

DISCUSSION

[¶ 8] The Medical Commission denied benefits because it determined that Ms. Padilla had not presented adequate evidence that her injury was related to her work duties. The evidence presented by Ms. Padilla was the testimony of two co-workers regarding Ms. Padilla's work duties; Ms. Padilla's testimony regarding her work duties and her injury; the deposition testimony of Ms. Padilla's treating physician; and various medical records.

[¶ 9] With regard to Ms. Padilla's work duties, the Medical Commission determined that her duties did not entail repetitive motion activities because she engaged in several different activities during the course of an average workday. Ms. Padilla, of course, believes that she did present sufficient evidence to support the repetitive nature of her various work activities. Because the determination of this particular issue is not decisive in this case, this Court will accept, for the sake of further argument, that Ms. Padilla's employment duties include repetitive motion activities. The decisive issue is whether Ms. Padilla adequately linked her job activities to her injury, the herniated cervical discs.

[¶ 10] Ms. Padilla's treating doctor opined "[i]t is quite clear in the medical literature that repetitive neck motions are frequently the cause of degenerative disc disease in the neck." He then stated that based upon the history he had been given by Ms. Padilla, he related her injury to the repetitive motion activities of her work. During his deposition, he testified that "[t]here is ample medical literature that supports the fact that repetitive motion type injuries do result in degenerative changes in the neck and do, indeed, predispose individuals to degenerative problems and herniated discs in the cervical spine and the spine in general." He further testified that the herniated cervical discs suffered by Ms. Padilla were consistent with fourteen years of employment involving the same, repetitive tasks. In offering this opinion, however, the doctor was referring to repetitive motion activities only in general terms. The doctor testified that he had no knowledge of what Ms. Padilla's actual work activities entailed.

[¶ 11] In an...