 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughan v. State ex rel Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division9/6/2002
[ ] This is an appeal from a determination of the State Medical Commission (Medical Commission) denying the permanent total disability claim of appellant Terry Ray Vaughan (Vaughan). We reverse and remand.
ISSUES
[ ] Vaughan sets forth the following issues:
1. Did the Medical Commission commit reversible error in failing to apply the odd lot doctrine in this case?
2. Did the Medical Commission panel improperly interpret and apply the definition of permanent total disability in denying the Claimant's benefits?
3. Is the unwillingness of the Claimant to become dependent on prescription pain medication a proper basis for denial of permanent total disability benefits, where the Division did not plead a harmful or injurious practice defense to the claim?
Appellee State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division), phrases the issues on appeal as:
I. Does substantial evidence support the Medical Commission's determination that Appellant is not permanently totally disabled?
II. Did the Medical Commission err in applying the definition of permanent total disability from Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xvi)?
FACTS
[ ] Vaughan suffered a serious work related back injury in 1994. After a number of surgeries, Vaughan received a twenty-three percent permanent partial impairment award in 1999. Vaughan's condition then worsened and, after failed attempts to secure employment given his physical limitations, Vaughan made an application for permanent total disability benefits which was denied by the Division. Vaughan appealed this determination, and a contested case hearing was held before the Medical Commission, with the Medical Commission upholding the decision of the Division. Vaughan then filed a petition for review before the district court, and this matter was certified directly to this court for appellate review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Judicial review of an agency action is directed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114. Serda v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 38, , 42 P.3d 466, (Wyo. 2002). Our standard of review when reviewing administrative agency action was recently clarified and refined in the case of Newman v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2002). That case held that "the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of review ... when factual findings are involved and both parties submit evidence." Newman, at .
[ ] In appeals where both parties submitted evidence at the hearing below, and the dispute is over the soundness of the factual findings of the agency, Newman mandates the appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. Id. This is true regardless of which party appeals from the agency decision. The substantial evidence test provides:
In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of evidence. Newman, at (quoting State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 2001 WY 51, , 24 P.3d 1133, (Wyo. 2001)).
In addition, we held that this court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal. Newman, at and
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.
|
|