State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v. Harris

• Decision Date: 06 February 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 96-106,96-107,s. 96-106
• Citation: 931 P.2d 255
• Parties: STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellant (Petitioner-Objector), v. Sherman HARRIS, Appellee (Respondent-Employee). SINCLAIR TRUCKING, Appellant (Petitioner-Employer), v. Sherman HARRIS, Appellee (Respondent-Employee).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 255

931 P.2d 255

STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellant (Petitioner-Objector), v. Sherman HARRIS, Appellee (Respondent-Employee).

SINCLAIR TRUCKING, Appellant (Petitioner-Employer), v. Sherman HARRIS, Appellee (Respondent-Employee).

Nos. 96-106, 96-107.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 6, 1997.

William U. Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, for Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division.

Catherine MacPherson, of MacPherson Law Offices, LLC, Rawlins, WY, for Sinclair Trucking.

Susan Maher Guthrie, Casper, Wyoming, for Appellee.

Before TAYLOR, C.J., THOMAS and MACY, JJ., and KALOKATHIS and PRICE, District Judges.

THOMAS, Justice.

The debate in this case is over the sufficiency of the evidence to support an award of benefits for a fatal heart attack sustained by Sherman Harris (Harris). ¹ Upon our reversal of an order of the district court remanding the case to the hearing examiner for the taking of additional evidence, Matter of Harris, 900 P.2d 1163 (Wyo.1995), the case was remanded for review of the original decision of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner's decision had awarded benefits to Harris, and upon our remand, the decision was affirmed by the district court. This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the standards articulated in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-603(b) (1991), as construed by our decisions. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the statutory standards as interpreted in our prior decisions. The ruling of the district court articulated in its Decision Letter, in which it affirmed the Order Awarding Benefits, is affirmed.

The single issue pressed by the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division) in its Brief of Appellant is:

Whether the Office of Administrative Hearings, award of workers' compensation benefits for the heart attack of a truck driver caused by changing a flat tire is arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.

In the Brief of Appellant, Sinclair Trucking, a series of issues are set forth:

A. Pursuant to W.S. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was unlawful and should be set aside because the decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law as set forth in W.S. § 27-14-603(b).

1. Under W.S. § 27-14-603(b)(ii), changing a tire as a matter of law is not a causative exertion clearly unusual to or abnormal for employees in the particular employment of an oilfield truck driver.

2. The Administrative Law Judge's determination that changing a tire on a loaded trailer, alone, in muddy conditions transformed an usual and normal exertion into an unusual and abnormal exertion amounted to a finding, in violation of W.S. § 27-14-603(b)(ii), that the exertion was unusual and abnormal for the individual employee, rather than for employees in the particular employment of an oilfield truck driver.

B. Pursuant to W.S. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E), the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is unsupported by substantial evidence of the character and type specifically required by W.S. § 27-14-603(b).

In the Brief of Appellee, Harris identifies only one issue:

1. Whether the Administrative Law Judge's decision rendered December 28, 1992 was correct as a matter of law and supported by substantial evidence?

In reviewing the decision of the hearing examiner, the district judge authored a complete and well considered decision letter. In addition to the factual background offered in Matter of Harris, we draw upon the factual summary articulated by the district judge. At the time of his death, Harris had worked for Sinclair Trucking for approximately seven years. During the last two or three years of that employment, Harris worked as a truck driver hauling loads of crude oil from the oil fields. In that employment, Harris was subject to Department of Transportation regulations that limited driving hours in a given time frame as demonstrated by a log of driving activities and required a periodic physical examination. At those examinations, the physician pronounced Mr. Harris to be generally in good health.

On August 21, 1991, Harris hauled two loads of crude oil. On the second trip, after picking up his load, a tire went flat on the inner dual wheel of the "pup" trailer, a smaller tanker pulled behind the main tanker. Harris' log book for that trip disclosed that he spent an hour and fifteen minutes changing the tire. He was required to remove an outer wheel and then change the inner tire. Considerable work is required to change a tire, which is exacerbated if the work must be done in the mud. When Harris returned home that evening, he was covered with mud and grease, and he told his wife that it "like to have killed me having to change that tire." Harris indicated that he had hurt his back and arms and was suffering from nausea, fatigue and indigestion. He asked Mrs. Harris to arrange a doctor's appointment for him.

Although his symptoms continued the following day, Harris hauled three loads of oil, completing his work at approximately 8:25 p.m. on August 22, 1991. He had coffee with a friend after work, but left early because he did not feel well, and felt like he was coming down with the flu. On the second day after changing the tire, August 23, 1991, Harris did not feel well and was late arriving at work. He hauled two loads of crude oil on that day, and he began to feel poorly as he was unloading the second load. A co-worker assisted him in unloading his truck, and the co-worker then fueled and weighed Harris' truck. When the coworker returned, he found Harris slumped over, and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

A claim for Worker's Compensation death benefits was filed on behalf of his wife. Both the Division and Sinclair Trucking filed timely objections, contending that Harris' death was not attributable to his employment. A contested case hearing was held July 14, 1992, and the hearing examiner awarded the statutory benefits. The Division and Sinclair Trucking sought judicial review of that administrative award, and the review lead to the return of the case by the district court to the hearing examiner to take additional evidence. After taking the additional evidence, the hearing examiner reversed the decision and denied benefits. Harris then appealed to the district court and to this court. We reversed the order of the district court that had remanded the case for taking additional evidence, and instructed the court to review the original administrative decision awarding benefits under the usual standards. Matter Of Harris. The district court, after accomplishing that review, affirmed the hearing examiner's decision awarding benefits, and the Division and Sinclair Trucking then appealed to this court.

Review of the action of an administrative agency is accomplished in accordance with WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1990), which provides:

The reviewing court shall:

* * * * * *

(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.

Review is limited to a determination of the issues specified in the statute, which is specifically adopted by reference in WYO. R. APP. P. . 12.09(a). In addition, the review is confined to the record and to the issues set forth in the petition for review and raised before the agency.

In accomplishing this review, we accord no special deference to the decision of the district court, but review the case as if it came to us directly from the agency. Wyoming Steel & Fab, Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 875 (Wyo.1994). We do give to the findings of fact by the administrative agency the same deference normally accorded to findings of fact by a trial court, and the agency's factual determinations will not be set aside unless clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record. We examine the entire record to determine if substantial evidence is present to support the findings of fact by the hearing examiner. Romero v. Davy McKee Corp., 854 P.2d 59, 61 (Wyo.1993). "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of an agency." Stuckey v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division, 890 P.2d 1097, 1099 (Wyo.1995). There must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence or simply a suspicion for a fact to be established. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Wyoming, 662 P.2d 878, 882 (Wyo.1983). The presence in the record of contradictory evidence or other material controverting a fact does not establish that a finding of that fact is not supported by substantial evidence.

There is no question that Harris died as a result of a heart attack. All parties point to the controlling statute in this matter, WYO. STAT. § 27-14-603(b) (1991) which provides:

(B) Benefits for employment-related coronary conditions except those directly and solely caused by an injury, are not payable unless the employee...