essential elements claim in Wyoming

2011Dale, ¶ 35, 188 P.3d at 563 ; Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Borchert, 994 P.2d 959, 963 (Wyo.2000).

2011Dale, ¶ 35, 188 P.3d at 563 ; Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Borchert, 994 P.2d 959, 963 (Wyo.2000).

2000Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo.1997), we summarized the appropriate approach to judicial review in an instance in which an agency declares that the party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden: A claimant for worker’s compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.

2000Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo.1997), we summarized the appropriate approach to judicial review in an instance in which an agency declares that the party charged with the burden of proof has failed to meet that burden: A claimant for worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.

1985Jim's Water Service v. Eayrs, Wyo., 590 P.2d 1346, 1351 (1979).

1985Jim’s Water Service v. Eayrs, Wyo., 590 P.2d 1346, 1351 (1979).

2013See eg., Jacobs, ¶ 11, 301 P.3d at 141 (citation omitted); Anastos v. Gen.

2013See, e.g., Jacobs, ¶ 11, 301 P.3d at 141 (citation omitted); Anastos v. Gen.

2011Div., 996 P.2d 679, 685 (Wyo.2000) and Kaczmarek, ¶ 11, 215 P.3d at 282-83 , indicate that the second compensable injury rule imposes a more lenient burden of proof, i.e., the claimant must demonstrate it is "more probable than not" that the first and second injury are causally related. [¶ 22] As the OAH recognized, a claimant generally has the burden of proving each of the essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

2011Div., 996 P.2d 679, 685 (Wyo.2000) and Kaczmarek, ¶ 11, 215 P.3d at 282-83 , indicate that the second compensable injury rule imposes a more lenient burden of proof, ie., the claimant must demonstrate it is "more probable than not" that the first and second injury are causally related. ¶22] As the OAH recognized, a claimant generally has the burden of proving each of the essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

2006Salas v. General Chemical, 2003 WY 79, ¶ 9 , 71 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003) (citations omitted). * * * A claimant for worker’s compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.

2006Salas v. General Chemical, 2003 WY 79, ¶ 9 , 71 P.3d 708, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2003) (citations omitted). * * * A claimant for worker’s compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.

2004Id.; In re Helm, 982 P.2d 1236, 1241 (Wyo.1999).

2004Id.; In re Helm, 982 P.2d 1236, 1241 (Wyo.1999).

2004Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Div., 979 P.2d 959, 961 (Wyo.1999), “[o]nce the claimant has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts, requiring the Division to produce evidence that the injury is excluded from the Act’s coverage.... ” However, the burden does not shift upon presentation of any evidence; it shifts only if the claimant has proven all the essential elements of her claim.

2004Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 979 P.2d 959, 961 (Wyo.1999), "[o]nce the claimant has satisfied this burden, the burden shifts, requiring the Division to produce evidence that the injury is excluded from the Act's coverage...." However, the burden does not shift upon presentation of any evidence; it shifts only if the claimant has proven all the essential elements of her claim.

1994XX-XX-XXX or XX-XX-XXX[.] "`[I]n a worker's compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proof on the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.'" Bagshaw v. Circle H Oilfield Service, 753 P.2d 1044, 1045 (Wyo.1988) (quoting Leonard, 746 P.2d at 1263 ).

1994The period of temporary total disability terminates at the time the employee completely recovers or qualifies for benefits under W.S. 27-14^05 or 27-14-406[.] “‘[I]n a worker’s compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proof on the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” Bagshaw v. Circle H Oilfield Service, 753 P.2d 1044, 1045 (Wyo.1988) (quoting Leonard, 746 P.2d at 1263 ).

1996To evaluate this argument, we will inventory the burdens of proof in worker’s compensation cases. —A claimant in a worker’s compensation case has the burden of proving all the statutory elements which comprise a “compensable injury.” Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., 526 P.2d 1197, 1199 (Wyo.1974); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, 474 P.2d 297, 298 (Wyo.1970); Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Scrogham, 52 Wyo. 232, 252 , 73 P.2d 300 , 307 (1937). —To show “compensable injury,” the claimant must prove all the essential elements of the claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Hepp, 881 P.2d

1979Pease v. Pacific Power & Light Company, Wyo., 453 P.2d 887 (1969); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, Wyo., 474 P.2d 297 (1970); Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., Wyo., 526 P.2d 1197 (1974), and the rule of liberal construction does not relieve the burden, Olson v. Federal American Partners, Wyo., 567 P.2d 710 (1977); Mor, Inc. v. Haverlock, supra; In re Hardison, Wyo., 429 P.2d 320 (1967).

1996To evaluate this argument, we will inventory the burdens of proof in worker’s compensation cases. —A claimant in a worker’s compensation case has the burden of proving all the statutory elements which comprise a “compensable injury.” Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., 526 P.2d 1197, 1199 (Wyo.1974); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, 474 P.2d 297, 298 (Wyo.1970); Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Scrogham, 52 Wyo. 232, 252 , 73 P.2d 300 , 307 (1937). —To show “compensable injury,” the claimant must prove all the essential elements of the claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Hepp, 881 P.2d

1979Pease v. Pacific Power & Light Company, Wyo., 453 P.2d 887 (1969); Black Watch Farms v. Baldwin, Wyo., 474 P.2d 297 (1970); Gifford v. Cook-McCann Concrete, Inc., Wyo., 526 P.2d 1197 (1974), and the rule of liberal construction does not relieve the burden, Olson v. Federal American Partners, Wyo., 567 P.2d 710 (1977); Mor, Inc. v. Haverlock, supra; In re Hardison, Wyo., 429 P.2d 320 (1967).

1987While conceding that, in a worker’s compensation case, the claimant has the burden of proof on the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence, Potter v. RMT Properties, Inc., Wyo., 715 P.2d 214 (1986), plaintiff contends that defendant, as employer, had the burden of proving the job offered was one which was suitable and one which plaintiff could perform.

1986“In a worker’s compensation case, the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the essential elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. * * * * # * * # “In determining whether an unsuccessful claimant has met his burden of proof on an essential element, we must assume on review that the evidence favoring the employer is true and leave out of consideration entirely the evidence presented by the claimant which conflicts with the employer’s evidence. * * * [W]e can reverse the trial court only if its findings are ‘clearly erroneous or manifestly wrong and totally against the evi

2020Because Mr. Vinson established his subsequent Strep A infection and necrotizing fasciitis were causally connected to his compensable injury (i.e., the scrape), these conditions were also compensable. [¶33] Once a claimant meets his burden of proving all of the essential elements of his claim, “the burden shifts to the party opposing benefits to establish an exclusion from worker’s compensation coverage.” Shepherd of Valley Care Ctr. v. Fulmer, 2012 WY 12, ¶ 20 , 269 P.3d 432, 438 (Wyo. 2012).

2020Because Mr. Vinson established his subsequent Strep A infection and necrotizing fasciitis were causally connected to his compensable injury (i.e., the scrape), these conditions were also compensable. [¶33] Once a claimant meets his burden of proving all of the essential elements of his claim, “the burden shifts to the party opposing benefits to establish an exclusion from worker’s compensation coverage.” Shepherd of Valley Care Ctr. v. Fulmer, 2012 WY 12, ¶ 20 , 269 P.3d 432, 438 (Wyo. 2012).

2015Div., 2014 WY 40 , ¶ 22, 321 P.3d 327, 338 (Wyo.2014) ("A workers' compensation claimant has the burden of proving each of the essential elements of his claim, including causation, by a preponderance of the evidence.") In this case, the hearing examiner did not expressly find the spinal cord stimulator trial was causally related to the compensable injury.

2011Div., 2010 WY 66, ¶ 11 , 232 P.3d 1, 4 (Wyo.2010); Dale, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 561-62 . *1165 DISCUSSION [114] A worker's compensation claimant has the burden of proving all of the essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

2011Div., 2010 WY 66, ¶ 11 , 232 P.3d 1, 4 (Wyo.2010); Dale, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 561-62 . *1165 DISCUSSION [114] A worker's compensation claimant has the burden of proving all of the essential elements of her claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

2006Phillips v. TIC-The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc., 2005 WY 40, ¶25 , 109 P.3d 520, 531 (Wyo.2005); In re Worker’s Compensation Claim of Johnson, 2001 WY 48, ¶ 7 , 23 P.3d 32, 35 (Wyo.2001).

2006Phillips v. TIC-The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc., 2005 WY 40, ¶25 , 109 P.3d 520, 531 (Wyo.2005); In re Worker’s Compensation Claim of Johnson, 2001 WY 48, ¶ 7 , 23 P.3d 32, 35 (Wyo.2001).

2006Phillips v. TIC-The Industrial Company of Wyoming, Inc., 2005 WY 40, ¶25 , 109 P.3d 520, 531 (Wyo.2005); In re Worker’s Compensation Claim of Johnson, 2001 WY 48, ¶ 7 , 23 P.3d 32, 35 (Wyo.2001).

2003Div., 752 P.2d 422, 425 (Wyo.1988). [¶ 17] Instead of putting on affirmative proof of the essential elements of her claim, she simply argued that the Division incorrectly limited the scope of the impairment rating.

2002Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 132, ¶ 19 , 36 P.3d 1145, ¶ 19 (Wyo.2001) (citation omitted), Therefore, it was Ms. Newman's burden to prove the new symptoms of severe intermittent headaches and double vision reported in July of 1999 were work-related injuries within the definition of § 27-14-102(a)(xi).

2002Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2001 WY 132, ¶ 19 , 36 P.3d 1145, ¶ 19 (Wyo.2001) (citation omitted), Therefore, it was Ms. Newman's burden to prove the new symptoms of severe intermittent headaches and double vision reported in July of 1999 were work-related injuries within the definition of § 27-14-102(a)(xi).

2002In re Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶10 , 24 P.3d 1133, 1186 (Wyo.2001). [18] When reviewing a hearing examiner's decision that a worker's compensation claimant has failed to meet the burden of proof, we apply the following principles: A claimant for worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.

2002In re Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶10 , 24 P.3d 1133, 1186 (Wyo.2001). [18] When reviewing a hearing examiner's decision that a worker's compensation claimant has failed to meet the burden of proof, we apply the following principles: A claimant for worker's compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the contested case hearing.