Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Carol Middlemass suffered a broken right shoulder in 1987 as a result of a car accident. Middlemass recovered and was able to use her shoulder normally. In 2009, Middlemass stated that she injured her right shoulder while working for Y-Tex Corporation. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Middlemass's request for worker's compensation benefits for the injury due to her preexisting condition. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH hearing examiner's conclusion that Middlemass did not meet her burden of proving that her shoulder injury was caused by her work activities was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the OAH hearing examiner properly ruled that expert medical testimony was required to establish that Middlemass' work activities caused the injury.

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.

In two consolidated appeals, the Town of Evansville ("town") Police Department ("department") appealed the district court's order of reversal for agency inaction filed July 23, 2009 and the district court's order denying motion for relief from an order filed April 15, 2010. The appeals arose from the department's efforts to terminate the employment of plaintiff, a police officer in the department. The court held that, considering all the facts of record relative to plaintiff's request for appeal of the termination of his employment, including the consent of the attorney for the town for an extension of the ten day deadline to request a hearing, the court found that the requirements of Article 23 of Chapter 2 of the Ordinances of the town was sufficiently invoked to require a post-termination hearing. As a result, the inaction of the department in failing to provide the required hearing before the governing body must be reversed, with the matter remanded to afford the rights prescribed by the town's own ordinance.