 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyce v. State2/1/2005
[ ] Claiming that her work activities materially aggravated a pre-existing condition in her foot, Sheila M. Boyce filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (the Division) denied her claim, she objected and, after a hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) also denied her claim, finding that Ms. Boyce did not meet her burden of proving her work activities substantially or materially aggravated her pre-existing condition. Ms. Boyce appealed to the district court, which affirmed the denial of benefits, and she now appeals to this court. We reverse.
ISSUES
[ ] Ms. Boyce presents the following issue:
The decision denying Workers' Compensation coverage is based on an incorrect interpretation and application of Wyoming law. It is not necessary for the employee/claimant's physicians to testify using the words, "material," "substantial," or some other equivalent term, in regard to whether the employee/claimant's pre-existing condition was materially or substantially aggravated by work conditions, but rather, medical and other evidence must be sufficient to prove material aggravation.
The Division phrases the issues as follows:
I. The Workers' Compensation Act excludes pre-existing conditions from the definition of compensable injuries. However, a claimant may be eligible for workers' compensation benefits if a pre-existing condition is materially aggravated by an accident during employment and the claimant proves this fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The hearing examiner determined Ms. Boyce failed to meet this burden of proof. Was the hearing examiner's decision in accordance with Wyoming workers' compensation law?
II. The hearing examiner determined that Ms. Boyce's medical problems were not due to a material aggravation of her pre-existing condition during her employment with Gibralter Holdings, LLC. Is the hearing examiner's decision denying benefits supported by substantial evidence?
FACTS
[ ] In February 2001, Ms. Boyce received a cortisone injection in her right foot for treatment of bone spurs and heel pain. Four to five months later, in July 2001, she began employment with Gibralter Holdings, LLC, which was building a new Super 8 Motel in Pinedale, Wyoming. Until the motel opened for business in late September 2001, Ms. Boyce worked out of her home hiring employees and ordering supplies. In August and September of 2001, while she was working out of her home, Ms. Boyce sought further treatment for her heel condition. When the motel subsequently opened, Ms. Boyce worked at the motel as the head of housekeeping. Her duties included inspecting guestrooms, doing laundry, supervising the cleaning staff and maintaining the breakfast room. During the time she was performing these duties, the condition of her foot grew progressively worse.
[ ] In January and February 2002, Ms. Boyce again sought treatment for her heel problems. By this time, her heel condition had worsened to the degree that she frequently was unable to perform room inspections. In February, doctors placed her foot in a cast and she was told she would need surgery. She was terminated from her employment on February 26, 2002. Shortly thereafter, she filed her claim for benefits, which the hearing officer denied resulting ultimately in her appeal to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Ms. Boyce asserts that the hearing examiner incorrectly interpreted and applied Wyoming law when he denied her claim for benefits and, accordingly, the following standards apply:
The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|