 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sparks3/1/1999
vision issued a Final Determination, denying benefits for Sparks' injury. The explanation presented by the Division was that Sparks' act of leaning over to pick up the medication from the medicine cart was a normal activity of day-to-day living, and that coverage was precluded by Wyo. Stat. Ann.' 27-14-102(a)(xi)(G).
Sparks objected to the Final Determination, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which conducted a hearing on Sparks' case on August 25, 1997.
The hearing examiner determined that Sparks' injury was covered and compensable. The hearing examiner explained that the phrase "day-to-day living" in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14102(a)(xi)(G), while vague, is not intended to deny benefits to workers injured even though they were performing actions that they also could perform outside of the work environment.
The hearing examiner addressed the interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(G) in this way:
"8. The Division contends that Claimant suffered her injury by the simple everyday act of bending over and therefore her injury is not a compensable one. Claimant argues that she was involved in an action required by her job and was performing her job at the time she injured her back. This Office is unaware of any Wyoming District or Supreme Court decisions dealing with the interpretation to be given Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(G) (1996). Perhaps this case will eventually result in such a decision. In any event, this Office is convinced that Claimant' s argument is the correct one."
The hearing examiner did comment that if the interpretation of the statute urged by the Division was adopted, there would be very minimal coverage of injuries under the worker's compensation system.
The Division filed a timely Petition for Judicial Review in the district court, and the district court certified the case to this Court in accordance with W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). The only question to be resolved is the construction of the statute. Our standard of review for such cases is quite clear:
"The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act is a question of law over which our review authority is plenary. Tenorio v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 931 P.2d 234, 237 (Wyo. 1997); Claim of Nielsen, 806 P.2d 297, 299 (Wyo. 1991). Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law. Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996); Aanenson v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 1992). We do not afford any deference to the agency' s determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in either interpreting or applying the law. Matter of Gneiting, 897 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Wyo. 1995); City of Casper v. Haines, 886 P.2d 585, 587 (Wyo. 1994)." Wright v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 952 P.2d 209, 211 (Wyo. 1998).
The statute in question reads, in relevant part:
"(xi) A Injury at means any harmful change in the human organism other than normal aging and includes damage to or loss of any artificial replacement and death, arising out of and in the course of employment while at work in or about the premises occupied, used or controlled by the employer and incurred while at work in places where the employer's business requires an employee's presence and which subjects the employee to extrahazardous duties incident to the business. "Injury" does not include:"
"(G) Any injury resulting primarily from the natural aging process or from the normal activities of day-to-day living, as estab
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|