Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant sustained a second to third-degree burn to his foot while working for Employer. Appellant's injury was found to be compensable. Appellant subsequently experienced foot pain and difficulty standing and wearing work boots and therefore applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. After a contested case hearing, a panel of the Medical Commission concluded that Appellant did not meet his burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission reasonably concluded Appellant was not entitled to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine and did not otherwise err in its decision. View "McIntosh v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

While she was working as a nurse at a hospital, Appellant suffered a heart attack. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Appellant's claim for benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant failed to prove her myocardial infarction was caused by exertion clearly unusual or abnormal to her position at the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err when it interpreted the statute governing coronary conditions to require that the causative exertion be unusual or abnormal for her position at the hospital rather than unusual or abnormal in the nursing profession generally. View "Fieseler v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

Appellant was employed as an iron worker when he injured his neck. Appellant received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for thirty-six months, after which he underwent shoulder surgery. Appellant subsequently filed an application with the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division for additional benefits, arguing that his shoulder surgery was a second compensable injury and, therefore, he was entitled to a separate period of benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed that the shoulder surgery was a second compensable injury and that the thirty-six month time limitation on Appellant's TTD benefits was inapplicable. The district court affirmed the OAH's determination that Appellant's shoulder injury constituted a second compensable injury but concluded that the time limitation did apply to Appellant's benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's shoulder injury was a result of the same accident that caused his neck injury, he was not entitled to an additional period of benefits. View "Picozzi v. State ex rel., Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 1988, Appellant injured his lower back while working for a paving company. Appellant underwent lumbar surgery in 1989 and, afterward, did not require additional treatment for his back surgery for several years. In 2007, an internist diagnosed Appellant with an arthritic hip and recommended a hip replacement. Appellant submitted a bill for the office visit to the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, which declined to pay the bill on the grounds that the hip condition was unrelated to the original work injury. After a contested case hearing, an Office of Administrative Hearings hearing examiner found that Appellant's arthritic hip was not related to the original compensable injury, and therefore, Appellant was entitled to benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. View "Little v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 1996, Appellant suffered a work-related back injury and sought benefits from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division. In 2009, Appellant began to experience significant lower back pain after shoveling snow. Appellant attempted to reopen her 1996 worker's compensation case to obtain payment for treatment of her recent back pain. The Division refused to reopen the case and denied Appellant's claims for benefits because more than four years had passed since she last sought benefits for her 1996 injury and because she failed to show her current injury was directly related to the 1996 injury. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the decision. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding (1) the OAH's decision was not contrary to law and was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH hearing examiner did not act arbitrarily and capriciously or abuse his discretion; and (3) the hearing examiner's findings of fact were sufficient. View "Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant, who suffered from cystic fibrosis, was employed as a police officer when he broke his hand during a training session. About a month later, Appellant was admitted to the hospital, where he was treated for "pneumonia, sinusitis with cystic fibrosis." The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division granted benefits for the medical treatment associated with Appellant's broken hand but denied benefits for his hospitalization and associated treatment on the grounds that the treatment for pneumonia and cystic fibrosis was not related to his work injury. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err by failing to find a causal connection between Appellant's work injury and his later medical conditions. View "Hayes v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant owned and operated two mobile home parks. In 2000, Appellant changed its practice of including in the rent it charged tenants the cost of water it purchased from the City for the tenants' use. Instead, Appellant installed water meters on each trailer lot and began charging tenants for water usage separately from their rent. In 2008, the Public Service Commission (PSC) determined that Appellant was a public utility and therefore subject to regulation by the PSC. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant metered a commodity utility to its tenants, it was a public utility under Wyoming law and therefore subject to PSC regulation; and (2) PSC's regulation of Appellant did not violate Appellant's equal protection rights. View "Gosar's Unlimited Inc. v. Wyo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) after he was stopped for failing to use his turn signal. Appellant refused to submit to chemical testing. The Wyoming Department of Transportation subsequently suspended Appellant's driver's license for six months. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the OAH order upholding the suspension of Appellant's driver's license, holding that the OAH's conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Appellant for DUI was clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Vogt v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

In 2004, Appellant suffered an injury to his lumbar spine while in the course and scope of his employment. Appellant applied for and received workers' compensation benefits for the injury. In 2005, Appellant accepted compensation for twenty-one percent whole body permanent partial impairment (PPI). After Appellant underwent additional surgery to his lumbar spine in 2010, Appellant received a final rating of seven percent whole body PPI. Because the 2010 PPI evaluation resulted in a rating that was less than the 2005 rating, the Workers' Compensation Division denied a PPI award beyond the twenty-one percent already paid. The Medical Commission upheld the Division's determination. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's decision denying Appellant's request for a higher PPI rating was in accordance with law, was supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary and capricious. View "In re Worker's Comp. Claim of Green" on Justia Law