In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of David J. Hartmann. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Safety and Compensation Division
2015 WY 1
Wyo.2015Background
- On Feb 24, 2010 Hartmann suffered a compensable cervical injury at work; he later underwent C5-6 disc replacement and the Division paid benefits for that treatment.
- About a year after the compensable neck injury and four months after surgery, Hartmann developed recurrent dizzy spells beginning Feb 2011.
- Neurologist Dr. Santiago ruled out serious intracranial causes and referred Hartmann to vestibular physical therapist Dr. Kathy Blair, who diagnosed cervicogenic dizziness and treated him with substantial symptomatic improvement.
- The Division denied benefits for dizziness treatment, concluding it was not related to the 2010 work injury; OAH awarded limited benefits (for Dr. Santiago in March 2011) but denied further benefits, finding Hartmann failed to prove causation.
- The district court reversed, holding OAH failed to apply the second compensable injury rule and remanded for reconsideration; the Division appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court treated the non-final appeal as a petition for review, concluded OAH did not apply the second compensable injury rule, found the medical evidence tied dizziness to the prior injury, and ordered an award of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hartmann) | Defendant's Argument (Division) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is the district court order appealable? | District court’s reversal is final and properly appealed. | District court remanded for further OAH action and order is non-final. | Not appealable; Court converted appeal to writ of review for judicial economy. |
| 2. Did OAH apply the second compensable injury rule? | OAH should apply second compensable injury standard: causation to prior compensable injury. | OAH’s analysis (focusing on employment nexus) was sufficient though it didn’t use the phrase. | OAH failed to invoke/apply the second compensable injury rule. |
| 3. Was there substantial evidence to deny benefits under the correct law? | Medical testimony (Drs. Blair, Santiago) shows cervicogenic dizziness more likely than not caused by prior neck injury. | OAH reasonably credited skepticism about diagnosis and competing medical notes. | Medical evidence establishes causation by preponderance; OAH’s rejection was against overwhelming weight of evidence. |
| 4. Proper remedy? | Remand for OAH reconsideration under correct rule or direct award. | Remand appropriate to let OAH reweigh evidence. | Court declines remand for reconsideration; directs remand to OAH to enter an order awarding benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 291 P.3d 297 (Wyo. 2012) (defines and applies second compensable injury rule)
- Pino v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 996 P.2d 679 (Wyo. 1999) (second compensable injury need not occur at work)
- Schwab v. JTL Group, Inc., 312 P.3d 790 (Wyo. 2013) (district court remand orders that require further substantive proceedings are non-appealable)
- Kaczmarek v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 215 P.3d 277 (Wyo. 2009) (preponderance standard for causal connection)
- Carson v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 322 P.3d 1261 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review for appeals from district court to Supreme Court on agency rulings)