 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Worker's Compensation of Leavitt5/25/1999
iled to clarify Dr. Champa's response on redirect, and we will not presume Dr. Champa did not mean what he said. Taken at face value, the transcript reveals that Dr. Champa changed his opinion concerning the cause of Leavitt's neck injury after learning of the injury Leavitt sustained while pushing a car.
Leavitt also contends that Dr. Weiner's report is not supported by the evidence. He points to several statements from Dr. Weiner's report as inconsistent and claims that the report implies that pushing the car worsened a work-related neck injury. Dr. Weiner's report contains the following Conclusion:
"Therefore, I would apportion 70% of the cervical disk pathology to normal development and physiologic changes and 30% to the aggravation of his work. I feel that the episode of pushing the car was essentially the "final straw on the camel's back" and that if the examinee had not pushed the car on that day, it would only have been a matter of time before his cervical symptoms and radicular symptoms came to fruition. Therefore, while pushing the car was the final event that brought on the examinee's symptoms, it was not specifically the "cause" of the disk bulge. This bulge was due to normal developmental and physiologic changes aggravated by the examinee's strenuous activities."
After careful review, we cannot say that Dr. Weiner's report contains the implications or inconsistencies Leavitt claims.
Finally, Leavitt contends that Dr. Weiner's report should not be considered substantial evidence that Leavitt's condition is not compensable because Dr. Weiner never examined him.
Dr. Lambert also found fault with Dr. Weiner's report because "Dr. Weiner has never examined the patient to verify any of his Conclusions." Although we understand the concern expressed by Leavitt and Dr. Lambert, we note that Dr. Weiner's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Champa after he learned of Leavitt's visit to Dr. Hageman. The district court's decision bears repeating here:
"This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency and it is not within the prerogative of this Court to perform duties as assigned by law to the Administrative Agency. McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1980). The hearing examiner is in the best position to Judge the demeanor, truth and veracity of witnesses and to decide which evidence is most dependable. State ex rel, Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Colvin, 681 P.2d 269, 271 (Wyo. 1984). This Court cannot substitute its opinion as to the weight and credibility of evidence for that determination made by the agency. Gilmore v. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 642 P.2d 773 (Wyo. 1982). The ultimate weight to be given to evidence submitted to an agency as a trier of fact is to be determined by the agency in light of the expertise and experience, in this case of the hearing examiner, in such matters. Telstar Communications, Inc. v. Rule Radiophone Service, Inc., 621 P.2d 241 (Wyo. 1980)."
Our task is not to reweigh the evidence. Wyo. Steel & Fab., Inc. v. Robles, 882 P.2d 873, 876 (Wyo. 1994). When faced with a substantial evidence question, we merely examine the record to determine if substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner's Conclusions. Id.
Medical evidence in the record and Dr. Weiner's report, which was corroborated by Dr. Champa's testimony on cross-examination, all support the hearing examiner's factual findings.
We affirm the hearing examiner's decision to deny benefits for the neck injury.
CONCLUSION
Although Leavitt argues mightily for what amounts to de novo review of the facts in this case, our standard of review lim
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|