 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Worker's Compensation of Pohl5/25/1999
ncreased to 32 percent.
Relying on the 32 percent rating, Pohl petitioned the Division for an award for an increase in permanent partial disability pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-605(a) (Michie Rpl. June 1991). The Division disputed the 32 percent rating and arranged for an independent medical evaluation (IME) with a second Oregon physician. After examination and testing, the IME examiner concluded that Pohl's impairment rating was 35 percent.
Before rendering a final determination, the Division employed a physician, Dr. Anne MacGuire, to conduct a review of Pohl's claim. After reviewing Pohl's history and both impairment ratings, Dr. MacGuire concluded that both impairment ratings were invalid under the AMA Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition (AMA Guide).
The Division denied Pohl's claim for an increase in her impairment rating, stating that the "Medical Adjudicator for the Division has reviewed the Impairment Rating and has indicated that you have no additional impairment, therefore, additional Permanent Partial Disability benefits will not be awarded." Pohl filed a timely request for a hearing, and the Division referred the case to the Workers' Compensation Medical Commission (Medical Commission).
The Medical Commission denied Pohl's claim. Like Dr. MacGuire, the Medical Commission determined that both the 32 percent and 35 percent ratings were invalid. The Medical Commission found that the measurements made by the IME examiner were generally consistent with the measurements used in determining Pohl's original 20 percent impairment rating and, thus, generally consistent in documenting Pohl's level of impairment. Because neither the invalid impairment ratings nor any other evidence established an increase in incapacity, the Medical Commission concluded that Pohl had not established an increase in impairment (above her original 20 percent rating) due solely to her work-related injury. Pohl petitioned for review of the Medical Commission's decision to the district court, which affirmed. This appeal follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When considering an appeal from a district court's review of an agency's decision, we accord no special deference to the district court's Conclusions. French v. Amax Coal West, 960 P.2d 1023, 1027 (Wyo. 1998); Manning v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 938 P.2d 870, 872-73 (Wyo. 1997). Instead, we review the case as if it had come to us directly from the administrative agency. Id. Our review is limited to a determination of the matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997), which mandates that the reviewing court shall:
"(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and Conclusions found to be:"
"(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;"
"(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;"
"(D) Without observance of procedure required by law[.]"
This appeal presents two questions of statutory interpretation, questions of law. We review questions of law de novo. Haagensen v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 949 P.2d 865, 867 (Wyo. 1997).
DISCUSSION
Before addressing Pohl's claims, we must dispose of the Division's contention that we should summarily affirm because Pohl did not raise her issues with the Medical Commission.
"As we have consistently stated over many years, Wyoming appellate courts do not review issues raised for the first time on appeal. This rule is equally applicable to appeals from administrative decisions as to tho
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.
|
|