Worker's Compensation Claims of Dorman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division
281 P.3d 342
Wyo.2012Background
- Dorman sustained a thoracic spine injury working as a foreman for Melehes Brothers, treated by chiropractors and then Dr. Scott Thomas; initial disability ratings were “sprain/strain.”
- Divisions: Aug 2005 award of TTD later terminated as injury deemed resolved, leading to appeals and repeated litigation.
- Dr. Walker treated Dorman until 2009; post-retirement, Dorman sought changes of physician to Dr. Cach (Idaho Falls) and later Dr. Beer (Cheyenne), with the Division approving the changes.
- Division issued determinations denying extended TTD benefits and travel reimbursements for Cheyenne travel; OAH upheld denial of extended TTD and travel reimbursement in combined hearing.
- Settlement and stipulation: Sept. 19, 2009, Division and Dorman entered a Stipulated Order awarding 24 months of TTD, with extended benefits contingent on statute and regulations.
- OAH and courts ultimately affirmed that Dorman did not meet the criteria for extended TTD nor for travel reimbursement under the closest-provider rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extended TTD benefits require clear and convincing evidence | Dorman argues he meets extraordinary circumstances | Division required clear and convincing proof of 5 factors including 12-month return-to-work outlook | Affirmed: no clear and convincing evidence of 12-month return-to-work, no abuse of discretion |
| Travel reimbursement for Dr. Beer as closest provider | Beer was the closest or adequately available provider for treatment | Closest provider was Dr. Cach in Idaho Falls; Beer not closest | Affirmed: Beer not closest provider; no travel reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 268 P.3d 1038 (Wy. 2012) (substantial evidence and credibility review guidance)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wy. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings)
- Bush v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 120 P.3d 176 (Wy. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence; agency findings)
- Kenyon v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 247 P.3d 845 (Wy. 2011) (de novo review of mixed questions of law and fact)
- Alexander v. Meduna, 47 P.3d 206 (Wy. 2002) (clear and convincing standard for extraordinary benefits)
- Moss v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 232 P.3d 1 (Wy. 2010) (standard for agency conclusions of law)