In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim Of: Kristi Leavitt v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division
2013 WY 95
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Leavitt sustained a compensable 1996 back injury with subsequent surgical relief and partial recovery.
- In December 2009 she experienced new back pain after shoveling snow; Dr. Ross treated her and attributed current pain to the 1996 injury.
- Wyoming Division denied reopening benefits; OAH upheld; district court affirmed; the Supreme Court affirms the district court.
- The hearing examiner discounted Dr. Ross’s causation testimony due to lack of objective testing and Dr. Ross’s credibility, citing long gaps in back-pain treatment and alternative causes.
- Evidence showed possible alternative causes (arthritis, general back strain from snow shoveling) and a lengthy hiatus between 1999 and 2009 without back pain complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAH’s law-disregarding of Dr. Ross was proper | Leavitt argues OAH erred by disregarding Dr. Ross’s causation testimony. | Wyoming allows disregarding a medical expert where credibility and other factors justify it. | Not contrary to law; OAH properly disregarded Dr. Ross. |
| Whether OAH acted arbitrarily or capriciously in credibility determinations | Leavitt contends examiner failed to base credibility appropriately. | Examiner’s credibility assessments are permissible if supported by record and rationale. | No; findings supported by record and reasonable credibility determinations. |
| Whether the findings of fact were sufficient | Leavitt asserts the order lacks sufficient factual findings. | Findings cover material issues and support the conclusion. | Yes; sufficient findings on material issues. |
| Whether the OAH decision is supported by substantial evidence | Leavitt claims the record supports causation between 2009 pain and 1996 injury. | Evidence does not establish preponderance of causation; other factors plausible. | Yes; decision supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 291 P.3d 297 (Wyo. 2012) (arbitrary and capricious standard; credibility considerations)
- Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 268 P.3d 1038 (Wyo. 2012) (agency may disregard uncontradicted expert testimony with valid reasoning)
- Willey v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 288 P.3d 418 (Wyo. 2012) (deference to agency witness credibility unless clearly against weight of evidence)
- Jacobs v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 301 P.3d 137 (Wyo. 2013) (substantial evidence and weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 247 P.3d 845 (Wyo. 2011) (test for substantial evidence; inferential reasoning)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Wyo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 297 P.3d 782 (Wyo. 2013) (arbitrary and capricious review safety net; basic findings required)