 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pino v. State2/17/2000
98-79.pdf from 98-79
Certification from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge
*Retired November 2, 1998.
The resolution of this case, in which judicial review is sought of an Order Denying Benefits for a worker=s compensation claim, depends upon the recognition of a duty on the part of a hearing examiner to invoke the rules of law pertaining to the claimant=s theory of the case. The issue claimed by Gerald S. Pino (Pino) is that the decision of the hearing examiner, denying benefits for a herniated disc in his back, was contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence, and such a decision is arbitrary, capricious, or other than in accordance with law. Pino was injured on the job . A bulge in a disc in Pino=s back was disclosed by a Magnetic Imaging Resonance (MRI) test subsequent to that injury. Some twenty-one months later, the disc herniated when Pino coughed while stepping out of the shower at home. Two treating physicians testified that the ruptured disc was, as a matter of reasonable medical probability, a result of the earlier injury on the job. They did concede that, in the absence of any previous objective investigation such as x-rays or an MRI, the bulge could have been present prior to the injury. Both stated, however, that no symptoms of such a condition were present prior to the job injury, and that fact supported the opinion of each of the doctors that the condition did not antedate the injury. The hearing examiner ruled that the cause of the herniation was the cough while Pino was at home and, therefore, Pino had failed to prove a job-related injury. Our examination of the Order Denying Benefits in light of the record persuades this Court that the hearing examiner overlooked, and for that reason failed to apply, the pertinent rules of law relating to a second compensable injury. The result was a decision contrary to law, and the Order Denying Benefits must be reversed and the matter remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for entry of an order in accordance with this opinion.
In the Brief of Appellant, the issue is stated in this way:
Did the Wyoming Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) act arbitrarily, capriciously, other than in accordance with Wyoming workers= compensation law, and contrary to the substantial evidence before it, when it entered its December 4, 1997 final order denying Appellant Gerald S. Pino=s claims for Wyoming workers= compensation benefits filed in connection with his continuing back complaints arising out of his original compensable back injury with Cowboy Dodge?
This Statement of the Issues is found in the Brief of Appellee, filed on behalf of the State of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming Workers= Safety and Compensation Division (Division):
The Hearing Examiner found the Employee=s herniated disc was caused by his coughing while he exited the shower at home, not by his prior, work-related back injury.
A. Were the Hearing Examiner=s findings supported by substantial evidence, within his discretion, and in accordance with law?
In June of 1995, Pino was employed as a mechanic in an automobile dealership in Cheyenne. He was severely injured when a van that he was working on slipped out of gear and rolled, pinning him against a workbench. His injuries were treated at the hospital, where x- rays disclosed no bone damage, and he returned to work within a couple of days. By the end of the following week, after he had continued working at his job, Pino sought treatment from his family physician, Dr. S. Pino=s complaints were debilitating lower back pain and radiating bilateral leg pain. Dr. S. ordered an MRI test,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|