Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants, Timothy Araguz and James Elder, were injured in separate incidents while working at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center. After receiving compensation through Wal-Mart's private workers' compensation fund, Appellants filed for benefits under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied their request, and the Office of Administrative Hearings confirmed the denial. At issue on appeal was whether Appellants were engaged in extrahazardous employment as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-108. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of benefits, holding that Wal-Mart was not engaged in extrahazardous employment as defined by the legislature and, therefore, Appellants were not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. View "Araguz v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

The Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division denied Rick Bodily benefits for medical expenses related to his micro-lumbar discectomy for a herniated disc in his lower back after determining that Bodily's medical treatment was not related to his compensable work-related back injuries. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) granted the Division's motion for summary judgment against Bodily. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed OAH's summary judgment, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact about causation of Bodily's disc herniation existed; and (2) the OAH erroneously acted as the trier of fact at the summary judgment stage in this case by weighing all the evidence and making credibility determinations. View "Bodily v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Shannon Cave suffered a work-related injury and was awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits during her recovery. After Cave rejected an offer of temporary light duty work from her employer, the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) reduced Cave's TTD benefits to one-third of the previously authorized amount in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-404(j). The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the reduction of TTD benefits. The district court reversed the OAH decision. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order, holding that the OAH decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law as the hearing examiner properly determined that the offer of light duty employment tendered to Cave was bona fide, and therefore, the OAH was obligated to reduce Cave's TTD benefits. View "State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Cave" on Justia Law

Steve Glen filed suit against his employer, Union Pacific Railroad, claiming that a work-related injury was caused by Union Pacific's negligence. Previously, the Supreme Court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific after finding the railroad had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the operation of its railway. After remand, the jury determined that both parties, as well as two non-party actors, were negligent and awarded damages to Glenn. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence of a prior incident involving Union Pacific that was the catalyst for a change in the railway's safety procedures and that the error was prejudicial to Glenn. Remanded for a new trial. View "Glenn v. Union Pac. R.R. Co." on Justia Law

Employee injured his knee while climbing into his employer-provided truck as he was preparing to leave on a work-related trip. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied Employee's requested workers' compensation benefits related to his injury. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The district court affirmed the OAH's decision. At issue on appeal was whether Employee's injury was sustained while he was being transported by a vehicle of the employer as the statute requires. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute plainly and unambiguously requires that for an injury sustained during travel to be compensable, it must occur as the employer's vehicle is carrying the employee from one place to another; and (2) because Employee here was entering the vehicle in preparation for that transportation when he was injured, the injury he sustained was not compensable. View "Barlow v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Carol Middlemass suffered a broken right shoulder in 1987 as a result of a car accident. Middlemass recovered and was able to use her shoulder normally. In 2009, Middlemass stated that she injured her right shoulder while working for Y-Tex Corporation. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Middlemass's request for worker's compensation benefits for the injury due to her preexisting condition. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH hearing examiner's conclusion that Middlemass did not meet her burden of proving that her shoulder injury was caused by her work activities was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the OAH hearing examiner properly ruled that expert medical testimony was required to establish that Middlemass' work activities caused the injury. View "Middlemass v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant Dawn Schossow injured her back while working as a nurse. Upon returning to work, Appellant requested permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-405(h), which governs the availability of PPD benefits and sets out the elements an injured worker must prove to qualify to receive the benefits. Appellant's request was denied. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. On appeal, Appellant contended that the OAH hearing examiner erred as a matter of law in interpreting section 27-14-405(h)(i) and that the hearing examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing examiner properly applied the statute in assessing what wage to use when determining Appellant's PPD eligibility; and (2) the hearing examiner's conclusion that Appellant was capable of earning ninety-five percent of her pre-injury wage, and thus was not eligible for PPD benefits, was supported by substantial evidence. View "Schossow v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Van Patten was injured while working on a drilling rig. Van Patten filed suit against several of his co-employees, claiming their willful and wanton misconduct caused his injuries. The district court held as a matter of law that the co-employees' acts or omissions were not willful and wanton and granted their motion for summary judgment. Van Patten appealed. In support of his assertion that his co-employees acted willfully and wantonly, Van Patten relied heavily on the company's written policies and after-the-fact statements by upper level employees who were not present on the rig or involved in using the machinery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in light of the testimony of those who were involved, the policies and statements relied upon by Van Patten did not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the co-employees knew the operation was dangerous and intentionally disregarded the danger. View "Van Patten v. Gipson" on Justia Law

In 2006, Will Torres claimed he injured his low back in a slip-and-fall accident at Home Depot where he worked. Torres had suffered two previous injuries to his low back. In January 2007, Torres received an MRI, which a doctor later used to diagnose Torres with multilevel degenerative disease. In August 2007, Torres had surgery performed on his back. Torres sought worker's compensation benefits from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division related to the back surgery. The division denied Torres disability benefits, determining that the surgery was not causally related to the 2006 accident. The division's denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings and later by the district court. Torres appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the hearing examiner's determination that Torres had failed to prove a causal relationship between the fusion surgery and the 2006 work incident was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Torres v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division" on Justia Law

In two consolidated appeals, the Town of Evansville ("town") Police Department ("department") appealed the district court's order of reversal for agency inaction filed July 23, 2009 and the district court's order denying motion for relief from an order filed April 15, 2010. The appeals arose from the department's efforts to terminate the employment of plaintiff, a police officer in the department. The court held that, considering all the facts of record relative to plaintiff's request for appeal of the termination of his employment, including the consent of the attorney for the town for an extension of the ten day deadline to request a hearing, the court found that the requirements of Article 23 of Chapter 2 of the Ordinances of the town was sufficiently invoked to require a post-termination hearing. As a result, the inaction of the department in failing to provide the required hearing before the governing body must be reversed, with the matter remanded to afford the rights prescribed by the town's own ordinance.