 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hicks v. State2/4/2005
[ ] Irene Hicks (Hicks) appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Medical Commission (the Medical Commission) denying her request for worker's compensation benefits for a September 2001 spinal fusion surgery that, she claimed, was the product of a work-related injury she suffered in July 1998. The Medical Commission concluded that Hicks was not a credible witness, and that she had failed in her burden of proving causation, as substantial evidence showed that Hicks' work-related injury had resolved before her surgery. We affirm.
ISSUES
[ ] Hicks presents three issues in her brief:
1. Did the District Court err in denying [Hicks] benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act including the costs for her September 17, 2001 fusion surgery that her doctors determined was necessary and causally connected to her of her July 1, 1998 work related injury?
2. Did the District Court err in upholding the decision of the Medical Commission which acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and in an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with the law, manner by totally disregarding the totality of the circumstances including the overwhelming evidence at the contested case hearing in support of [Hicks], by misconstruing and misapplying the evidence to attack credibility, by willfully discounting substantial credible evidence from treating doctors, by not allowing certain testimony in, and by inappropriately relying upon mere speculation and conjecture from the Division's "hired gun" who did only a fifty (50) minute paper document review without ever doing an independent medical examination of [Hicks]?
3. Has [Hicks'] constitutional and due process rights been violated by the District Court in upholding the decision of the Medical Commission which overlooked the Division's inconsistent determination that sustained a compensable work related injury on July 1, 1998, but denied her benefits under the Act for her necessary treatment including her September 17, 2001 surgery, even though she met her burden of proof before the Medical Commission?
The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) significantly restates the issues:
I. A claimant applying for workers' compensation benefits must prove that each additional claim is related to her employment injury. The Medical Commission Hearing Panel determined that Ms. Hicks' medical complaints subsequent to August 29, 2001, were not related to a compensable injury, but rather, due to her pre-existing condition. Is the Medical Commission Hearing Panel's decision denying benefits supported by substantial evidence?
II. Ms. Hicks claims the Medical Commission Hearing Panel acted arbitrarily and capriciously by determining witness credibility, weighing the evidence and by discounting certain conflicting medical opinions. Is a challenge to these factual determinations more appropriately reviewed under the substantial evidence test since both parties presented evidence at the contested case hearing?
III. Ms. Hicks alleges the Medical Commission Hearing Panel violated her constitutional due process rights, however, she fails to present a proper constitutional claim. Should this Court refuse to consider the alleged constitutional error because it is not supported with appropriate constitutional analysis or authority?
FACTS
[ ] Hicks has suffered two work-related back injuries. In 1997 Hicks was working at a motel when she fell off a chair and hit her back on a table. Hicks suffered a mild anterior compression fracture. The injury was successfully resolved through chiropractic treatment. While Hicks was being treate
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.
|
|