Shepherd of the Valley Care Center v. Fulmer, 269 P.3d 432

Fulmer, a CNA at Shepherd of the Valley Care Center, sustained injuries on Aug. 12 and Aug. 30, 2008.
Shepherd objected to both workers’ compensation claims; the Division denied benefits for both.
OAH upheld the denials, concluding culpable negligence for Aug. 12 and normal daily living for Aug. 30.
District court reversed, holding the record did not support those conclusions.
This appeal asks whether the two injuries are compensable under the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Aug. 12, 2008 injury caused by Fulmer’s culpable negligence?	Fulmer did not act with willful disregard; record lacks evidence of extreme conduct.	Fulmer violated a two-person transfer policy, showing willful misconduct.	No, insufficient evidence of culpable negligence; remand for benefits.
Was Aug. 30, 2008 injury caused by normal activities of daily living?	Injury arose from work task under employer control; not a day-to-day living act.	Injury resulted from walking while delivering ice/water, a normal activity.	No, employer lacked proof that the task was a normal daily activity; remand for benefits.

Sparks v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 973 P.2d 507 (Wyo. 1999) (definition of day-to-day living exclusion; employer must show lack of control over the activity)
Keck v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 985 P.2d 430 (Wyo. 1999) (right-of-control test; reversal when work activity aggravated condition)
Sellers v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 979 P.2d 959 (Wyo. 1999) (day-to-day living exclusion; employer bears burden)
Baros v. Wells, 780 P.2d 341 (Wyo. 1989) (culpable negligence requires willfulness beyond unreasonable conduct)
Yenne-Tully v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 48 P.3d 1057 (Wyo. 2002) (day-to-day living exclusion; analysis of employer control over task)