 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Berg v. State2/25/2005
k injury that eventually necessitated fusion surgery.
[ ] Berg filed a report of injury with the Division claiming that he had suffered a work-related injury. The Division issued a Final Determination denying benefits, citing the statutory definition of a compensable injury found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(D), which excludes from coverage any such injury sustained while traveling to or from employment, unless the employee is reimbursed for his travel expenses or was transported in a vehicle belonging to the employer. Berg objected and a hearing was held before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Berg and the Division presented witnesses and exhibits. The hearing examiner concluded that Berg was entitled to benefits because he had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had suffered an injury during the scope of his employment. Specifically, the hearing examiner found that Berg was required by Cyclone to stay at the camp as a condition of his employment and, hence, there was a "nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of employment."
[ ] The Division appealed the hearing examiner's decision to the District Court, which reversed. The court concluded that there was not substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's finding that Berg was required to stay at the camp. The court held that there was no nexus or causal connection between Berg's injury and his employment. Berg has appealed that determination to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our review of an administrative decision is limited to those matters specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003):
(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:
(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(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;
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.
The standard of review we apply when both parties present evidence at an administrative hearing was set forth in Newman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2002).
In appeals where both parties submit evidence at the administrative hearing, Newman mandates that appellate review be limited to application of the substantial evidence test. Newman, 2002 WY 91, , 49 P.3d 163. This is true regardless of which party appeals from the agency decision. In addition, this court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate determination on appeal. Newman, at and -26.
The substantial evidence test to be applied is as follows:
"In reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support an agency's f
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.
|
|