Tyler L. Stallman v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division
2013 WY 28
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Stallman, a Wyoming DOC employee, sustained multiple injuries in a 2006 vehicle rollover and received a 22% permanent impairment; she sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits under the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Division denied PTD, concluding Stallman did not meet the statutory PTD definition; the matter went to a contested case hearing before a Medical Commission panel.
- The panel found Stallman failed to prove PTD under the odd lot doctrine because it credited a physician's opinion that she could work in light/sedentary positions and found insufficient evidence of actual available work in her community.
- Stallman’s impairment ratings (20–22%), FCE results, and treating physicians’ statements showed she could not return to her prior, physically demanding job but could potentially perform light or sedentary work.
- Evidence included a restrictive travel radius from Lusk, PTSD-related driving anxiety, and a lack of local employment options; the Division offered various out-of-area job listings but found no suitable local positions.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding Stallman made a prima facie case of de facto unemployability, and the Division failed to prove that gainful employment was actually available within a reasonable geographic area; the case was remanded to the Commission for PTD benefits consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stallman proved odd lot entitlement, shifting burden to Division | Stallman established de facto unemployability due to impairment and nonmarketable local options. | Division contends evidence showed available light/sedentary work or that Stallman could relocate/rehab for employment. | Yes; burden shifted to Division; Division failed to show actual local gainful work. |
| Whether the Division demonstrated actual availability of light/sedentary work in Stallman’s community | No reasonably available local light/sedentary jobs within a feasible geographic area given isolation and travel limits. | There were some positions in other towns; Stallman should relocate or commute for work. | No; Division did not prove such work was actually available within a reasonable distance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 232 P.3d 1 (Wyo. 2010) (outlines odd-lot burden-shifting framework and available employment analysis)
- In re Pickens, 134 P.3d 1231 (Wyo. 2006) (describes odd-lot standard and employer’s burden to prove available light work)
- Anaya v. Holly Sugar Corp., 928 P.2d 473 (Wyo. 1996) (confirms prima facie burden for odd-lot treatment and availability of regular labor market work)
- Vaughan v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Comp. Div., 53 P.3d 559 (Wyo. 2002) (addresses limits of impairment ratings and vocational evaluation in PTD analysis)