Kenyon v. STATE EX REL. WORKERS'COMP. DIV.
2011 WY 14
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Kenyon had preexisting right knee OA with prior surgeries; she sustained a work-related knee incident on March 19, 2006, leading to arthroscopic treatment; a total knee replacement occurred July 9, 2008; the Wyoming Division denied benefits for the replacement as non-work-related; the OAH awarded benefits for the March 2006 surgery but denied the 2008 replacement; the district court and Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the OAH decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second compensable injury rule applied to causation | Kenyon argues the second compensable injury rule should apply with a lenient burden. | Division argues the standard burden of proof applies if appropriate under the rule. | OAH applied the correct burden (preponderance) under the second compensable injury framework. |
| Preference of medical opinions for causation | Kenyon asserts treating physician Rork should prevail over the Division's evaluator Ruttle. | Division contends Ruttle's Baxter-based analysis is more persuasive. | OAH’s weighing of Baxter factors and preferring Dr. Ruttle over Dr. Rork was supported by substantial evidence. |
| Credibility of the claimant and its impact on findings | Kenyon challenges the credibility findings and asserts they invalidly undercut her testimony. | OAH appropriately weighed demeanor and corroborating records, deferring to credibility determinations. | Court affirmed credibility determinations as supported by the record and proper deference to the fact-finder. |
| Causation of the total knee replacement in light of preexisting OA | Work injury contributed to need for replacement; the intervening history may establish causation. | Replacement due to preexisting OA, not work-related; the work injury did not cause the replacement. | Evidence supported that the total knee replacement was not caused by the March 2006 work injury; OAH's decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings; burden of proof on causation)
- Dutcher v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 223 P.3d 559 (Wy. 2010) (standard for review and Burden of proof; meaningful appellate scrutiny)
- Judd v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 233 P.3d 956 (Wy. 2010) (clarifies burden and relation to preponderance of evidence)
- Chavez v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 204 P.3d 967 (Wy. 2009) (affirmed deference to the agency's weighing of medical opinions)
- Spletzer v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 116 P.3d 1103 (Wy. 2005) (guidance on weighing medical opinion testimony)
- Kaczmarek, State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 215 P.3d 277 (Wy. 2009) (describes second compensable injury rule and burden of proof)
- Yenne-Tully v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 12 P.3d 170 (Wy. 2000) (distinguishes second compensable injury burden from other standards)
- Baxter v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 100 P.3d 427 (Wy. 2004) (outlines Baxter factors for medical opinion credibility)