 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hicks v. State2/4/2005
o prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her surgery was causally related to her work injury. In Boyce v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2005 WY 9 _____P.3d _____ (Wyo. 2005), we held that when a "party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden, we review the case under the arbitrary, capricious, abuse-of-discretion, or otherwise-not-in-accordance-with-law standard." Id., . In this case, the Medical Commission found that Hicks had failed to meet her burden of proof but it also made the factual finding that her back injury was not caused by her work. When the trier of fact's conclusion that the claimant has failed to meet his or her burden of proof is coupled with a factual finding that the injury was not work-related, we will apply the substantial evidence test.
[ ] Finally, Hicks contends that she was denied due process. Specifically, she claims that the Medical Commission refused to allow her to produce evidence showing that the Division had continued to pay her benefits for her July 1998 injury , after her back injury had allegedly resolved in the Spring of 1999. Hicks argues that if her injury had, in fact, resolved itself or if the surgery was not related to the July 1998 injury, then the Division would not have continued to pay her benefits.
[ ] We have consistently stated that an uncontested award of benefits is not a final adjudication that precludes the Division from challenging future benefits, and that, accordingly, a claimant must prove that she was entitled to receive benefits for all outstanding claims despite any previous awards for the same injury . Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, , 49 P.3d 163, (Wyo. 2002) (quoting Hall v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 2001 WY 136, , 37 P.3d 373, 14 (Wyo. 2001)); see also Tenorio v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division, 931 P.2d 234, 239 (Wyo. 1997). In her brief, Hicks does not address how her argument was proper in light of this well-established principle. Even if we assumed that the Medical Commission prohibited Hicks from presenting this evidence, it appears that Hicks' argument is not appropriate. Hicks has failed to present us with a cogent argument supported by authoritative citation. We do not consider such arguments. Dobson v. Stahla, 2003 WY 6N, , 63 P.3d 209, (Wyo. 2003).
[ ] Affirmed.
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.
|
|