 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State11/19/2004
al, Inc.
[ ] Dr. Stenfors-Dacre further opined that the most likely cause of Parrish's present back condition was chronic repetitive heavy work that he had done since 1976 and that Parrish's chronic cervical and lumbosacral back pain had a high probability of being directly correlated to his work history of chronic heavy lifting. Of course, this time frame would include the time that Parrish worked at Excal, Inc. from 1994 forward.
Pre-existing disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim under the "arising out of employment" requirement if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the death or disability for which compensation is sought.
Hepp v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076, 1079 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, ยง 12.21 (1996)); see also Jim's Water Serv. v. Eayrs, 590 P.2d 1346, 1349 (Wyo. 1979).
State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div. v. Roggenbuck, 938 P.2d 851, 854 (Wyo. 1997) (Hartman, D.J., dissenting). We conclude, therefore, that substantial evidence was produced at the hearing to support a determination that Parrish's Excal, Inc. work effort actually caused his back injuries, or at least contributed in a material degree to the aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative back condition.
[ ] Finally, Parrish cannot be faulted for not properly fashioning his case so that it was possible to reach a conclusion that Parrish's Excal. Inc. work effort materially contributed to the aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative back condition. To the contrary, Parrish's injury report stated that his injuries had occurred over a substantial period of time while he was at Excal, Inc. without any reference to any specific date of injury. He thereafter consistently asserted this position. We see little difference in Parrish's position and a contention that he had a pre-existing back degenerative condition and that as a result of his employment at Excal, Inc., such effort caused his substantive back injuries and/or materially contributed to the aggravation of his pre-existing degenerative back condition.
[ ] It is well established in Wyoming that:
An employee-claimant in a worker's compensation case has the burden to prove all the statutory elements which comprise a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. City of Casper, 2001 WY 4, , 16 P.3d 710, (Wyo. 2001); Sherwin-Williams Company v. Borchert, 994 P.2d 959, 963 (Wyo. 2000); Thornberg v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 913 P.2d 863, 866 (Wyo. 1996). This includes establishing the cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed and proving that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Wesaw v. Quality Maintenance, 2001 WY 17, , 19 P.3d 500, (Wyo. 2001); Hanks, ; State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979, 981 (Wyo. 1996). Put another way, the claimant has the burden of following procedures and rules contained within the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act in order to establish entitlement to worker's compensation benefits. Sherwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d at 963; Pittman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 917 P.2d 614, 617 (Wyo. 1996).
To meet the preponderance standard, the claimant must present evidence which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Sherwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d at 963.
Bruns v. TW Services, Inc., 2001 WY 127, -13, 36 P.3d 608, -13 (Wyo. 2001). We have equally well established that up
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|