individual factors in Wyoming

2011Id. [¶ 17] In concluding Mr. Dial had suffered a loss of earning capacity and was entitled to an award of PPD benefits, the OAH cited the testimony of Ms. Mahaffey, Mr. Dial's fiancée at the time, that Mr. Dial had limited range of motion, difficulty turning his head and poor concentration and she did not think it was safe for him to drive.

2011Id. [T17] In concluding Mr. Dial had suffered a loss of earning capacity and was entitled to an award of PPD benefits, the OAH cited the testimony of Ms. Mahaffey, Mr. Dial's fiancée at the time, that Mr. Dial had limited range of motion, difficulty turning his head and poor concentration and she did not think it was safe for him to drive.

2011McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95; Chaves, 18, 188 P.3d at 189 .

2006McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 ; Chavez, ¶ 8, 138 P.3d at 189 . ‘Wages earned by the employee [are] material to the question of the employee’s earning capacity and [are] entitled to whatever weight the fact finder gives to it.” McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 . [¶ 13] In deciding Mr. Bonsell had suffered a loss of earning capacity and was, *690 therefore, entitled to an award of PPD benefits, the hearing examiner made the following conclusions of law: 8.

2006McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 ; Chavez, ¶ 8, 138 P.3d at 189 . ‘Wages earned by the employee [are] material to the question of the employee’s earning capacity and [are] entitled to whatever weight the fact finder gives to it.” McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 . [¶ 13] In deciding Mr. Bonsell had suffered a loss of earning capacity and was, *690 therefore, entitled to an award of PPD benefits, the hearing examiner made the following conclusions of law: 8.

2006McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 ; Chavez, ¶ 8, 138 P.3d at 189 . ‘Wages earned by the employee [are] material to the question of the employee’s earning capacity and [are] entitled to whatever weight the fact finder gives to it.” McCarty, 694 P.2d at 95 . [¶ 13] In deciding Mr. Bonsell had suffered a loss of earning capacity and was, *690 therefore, entitled to an award of PPD benefits, the hearing examiner made the following conclusions of law: 8.

2001There must be a final decision, that is, "an ultimate disposition of an individual claim." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 851 U.S. 427 , 486, 76 S.Ct. 895, 900 , 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956).

2001There must be a final decision, that is, "an ultimate disposition of an individual claim." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 851 U.S. 427 , 486, 76 S.Ct. 895, 900 , 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956).

1975The court declared: * * * In the case at bar, until a full accounting was had, and until the partnership was fully liquidated, as a matter of law, there could be no claim against any of the partners individually for advances made or received, nor could a claim be filed against the estate of the deceased partner until there had been a full accounting or liquidation of the partnership, by which determination of the amount of the individual claim, if any could be had, and a showing that all his interest in the partnership, whether of profits or capital, had been first applied to the discharge of

1975The court declared: * * * In the case at bar, until a full accounting was had, and until the partnership was fully liquidated, as a matter of law, there could be no claim against any of the partners individually for advances made or received, nor could a claim be filed against the estate of the deceased partner until there had been a full accounting or liquidation of the partnership, by which determination of the amount of the individual claim, if any could be had, and a showing that all his interest in the partnership, whether of profits or capital, had been first applied to the discharge of

1923Town of Guilford v. Chenango County, 13 N. Y. 143 , for instance, one of the leading and oft-quoted eases on the subject, was decided in 1855; Menges v. Wertman, 1 Pa. St. 218, in 1845; Lycoming v. Union, 13 Pa. St. 166, 53 Am.