Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Dawn Schossow injured her back while working as a nurse. Upon returning to work, Appellant requested permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-405(h), which governs the availability of PPD benefits and sets out the elements an injured worker must prove to qualify to receive the benefits. Appellant's request was denied. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. On appeal, Appellant contended that the OAH hearing examiner erred as a matter of law in interpreting section 27-14-405(h)(i) and that the hearing examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing examiner properly applied the statute in assessing what wage to use when determining Appellant's PPD eligibility; and (2) the hearing examiner's conclusion that Appellant was capable of earning ninety-five percent of her pre-injury wage, and thus was not eligible for PPD benefits, was supported by substantial evidence.

Appellant Michael Van Patten was injured while working on a drilling rig. Van Patten filed suit against several of his co-employees, claiming their willful and wanton misconduct caused his injuries. The district court held as a matter of law that the co-employees' acts or omissions were not willful and wanton and granted their motion for summary judgment. Van Patten appealed. In support of his assertion that his co-employees acted willfully and wantonly, Van Patten relied heavily on the company's written policies and after-the-fact statements by upper level employees who were not present on the rig or involved in using the machinery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that in light of the testimony of those who were involved, the policies and statements relied upon by Van Patten did not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether the co-employees knew the operation was dangerous and intentionally disregarded the danger.

In 2006, Will Torres claimed he injured his low back in a slip-and-fall accident at Home Depot where he worked. Torres had suffered two previous injuries to his low back. In January 2007, Torres received an MRI, which a doctor later used to diagnose Torres with multilevel degenerative disease. In August 2007, Torres had surgery performed on his back. Torres sought worker's compensation benefits from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division related to the back surgery. The division denied Torres disability benefits, determining that the surgery was not causally related to the 2006 accident. The division's denial was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings and later by the district court. Torres appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the hearing examiner's determination that Torres had failed to prove a causal relationship between the fusion surgery and the 2006 work incident was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.