Curnow v. STATE EX REL. WYO. COMP. DIV.

Citation: 899 P.2d 875Docket: 94-189

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court; July 21, 1995; Wyoming; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Curnow, the appellant, challenged the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division's denial of his claim for worker's compensation benefits, asserting he met the statutory requirements under WYO.STAT. 27-14-502(c). This statute mandates that employees report injuries to their employer within 72 hours of their occurrence and file a formal report within ten days. The hearing examiner determined Curnow did not comply with these requirements, leading to a presumption of claim denial. Although Curnow demonstrated a lack of prejudice regarding the investigation of the incident, he failed to show a lack of prejudice in monitoring his medical treatment. The district court affirmed the hearing examiner’s decision, citing substantial evidence to support it.

Curnow's employment with WOTCO, Inc. began in 1990, where his primary role involved operating a heavy grinder, which he used for grinding excess metal. He first experienced wrist issues in December 1992 and sought medical attention in July 1993, identifying the injury date as December 1, 1992, and describing it as work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. He did not report the injury to his employer until September 14, 1993, and filed the necessary report with the court on September 24, 1993. His claims for medical expenses were subsequently submitted under the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act. The critical points of contention were Curnow's compliance with the reporting requirements and whether any failure to report was justified by a lack of prejudice to his employer's rights.

WOTCO contested the award of benefits to Curnow, questioning the work-relatedness of his symptoms. The Workers' Compensation Division supported WOTCO's objection, citing concerns about Curnow's delay in reporting his healthcare visits. Following a contested case hearing, the hearing examiner determined that Curnow suffered from work-related carpal tunnel syndrome and was aware of the injury's relation to his employment by July 6, 1993. However, he reported the injury to WOTCO on September 14, 1993, and filed a workers' compensation report on September 24, 1993. The examiner concluded Curnow did not report the injury within the required seventy-two hours or file with the clerk of court within ten days, which typically leads to a presumption of claim denial. Despite this presumption, the examiner found no prejudice to WOTCO or the Division regarding the investigation but noted prejudice regarding monitoring Curnow's medical treatment. Consequently, Curnow could not rebut the presumption of denial. After obtaining judicial review, the district court upheld the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions, affirming the denial of benefits. Curnow appealed the Order of Affirmance. The relevant statute, WYO.STAT. 27-14-502, states that failure to timely report the injury creates a presumption of denial, which can only be rebutted with clear evidence of no prejudice to the employer or Division. It was established that an injury is compensable only when properly diagnosed, referencing previous case law.

In W.E. Bill Sauer's Drilling Co. v. Gendron, the court reaffirmed that the determination of an employee's awareness of a compensable injury is a factual one for the finder of fact. Curnow was aware of his compensable injury as of July 6, 1993, following a medical consultation, and his filings regarding the injury were deemed untimely. The hearing examiner correctly applied the presumption under WYO.STAT. 27-14-502(c) and evaluated whether there was sufficient evidence to rebut it. The examiner concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence indicating that the employer, WOTCO, was not prejudiced in investigating the injury despite the delayed reporting. WOTCO had established a policy requiring prompt reporting of accidents and actively monitored employee health care, which was hindered by Curnow's late notification. WOTCO was unaware of prescribed medications and braces due to this delay, which impacted their ability to assist Curnow effectively. Curnow failed to provide evidence to counter the claims of prejudice to the employer or Division, leading to the affirmation of the hearing examiner's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the examiner's findings and determined that there was no arbitrary or capricious treatment of Curnow's case, affirming the district court's order denying benefits.