[¶ 1] James L. Ball (Ball) appeals the district court decision reversing an Office of Administrative Hearings order awarding benefits for medical treatments Ball received for a hernia. Ball suffered the hernia when a spinal cord stimulator, implanted to treat chronic back pain from an earlier compensable work-related injury, malfunctioned and shocked him, causing him to stand rapidly and then fall. The question we must answer is whether the hernia occurred "in the course of the employment" as that term appears in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(c)(iii) (Lexis-Nexis 2009). We hold that Ball's hernia occurred "in the course of the employment" and reverse the district court's decision.
[¶ 2] Ball presents these issues:
The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (Division) states a single issue:
[¶ 3] In June 1993, while at work, Ball slipped on a drain cover as he was walking into a walk-in refrigerator to get some milk, and injured his shoulder, neck, back, and right leg. He was awarded permanent total disability benefits and has received ongoing benefits for treatment of chronic pain, including narcotic pain medications and implantation of a spinal cord stimulator.
[¶ 4] Ball originally had a spinal cord stimulator implanted for treatment of his chronic pain in 2000. By May of 2006, the original stimulator was no longer operable and a new stimulator was implanted. Unfortunately, with the new stimulator, Ball developed painful side effects that he described as "good jolts" or "a shocking sensation," and which occurred without warning while he was lying down or moved in a certain way. At the time of the hearing in this matter, Ball was working with his physicians to resolve these problems.
[¶ 5] In mid-July of 2007, Ball was at home lying in bed when he experienced a shocking sensation that caused him to attempt to stand up "real fast." Ball described it as having his right leg feel as though it was all muscle cramps or a big "charley horse." As Ball stood, he fell. He did not know whether he passed out or not, but when he attempted to get up, he experienced a pain in his left groin that he had never experienced before. Ball attempted to call his physician as he feared he had broken a wire on the stimulator. He initially thought that he had perhaps pulled a muscle, but the pain in his left groin worsened over time to the point that he sought medical attention.
[¶ 6] A few days after falling, Ball saw Dr. Deborah Young, M.D., a board certified psychologist and neurologist who had treated Ball for some time for his chronic pain. Dr. Young, who had seen Ball on June 28, 2007, and recertified his total disability, met with Ball on July 26, 2007. Dr. Young stated the following concerning that visit:
[¶ 7] On August 1, 2007, Ball was examined by Dr. James Shaw, M.D., an associate of Dr. Wailes with Pacific Pain Medicine Consultants. At that time, Dr. Shaw noted:
In that same report, Dr. Shaw noted the following in his treatment plan:
[¶ 8] Following an abdominal CT scan, which revealed an inguinal hernia containing a large bowel, Ball underwent surgery on August 16, 2007. At the time of the operation, the surgeon noted that "[t]here was a lot of scarring either this hernia had been quite chronic or it may be related to previous surgery. I think the patient may have had a vasectomy on that side." Ball had in fact had a vasectomy more than twenty years earlier.
[¶ 9] Ball saw Dr. Young again on December 6, 2007, after having undergone hernia surgery. In a letter concerning that visit, Dr. Young summarized the history Ball had previously provided concerning his hernia, that he had jumped out of bed and fallen to the floor after experiencing an electrical sensation in his right leg. Dr. Young concluded, "[I]t would appear that the hernia developed as a consequence of the neurological sequelae of Mr. Ball's work-related injury."
[¶ 10] The Division issued a final determination denying payment for treatment of Ball's hernia on the basis that it was not related to Ball's original 1993 injury to his back. Ball objected to the Division's determination, and the matter was referred for a contested case hearing. During the contested case hearing, Ball contended that he was entitled to benefits to cover the costs related to his hernia because the development of his hernia was causally related to his original work-related injury. Specifically, Ball claimed that his fall was caused by a malfunction in his electrical stimulator, which was prescribed and implanted to treat his chronic low back pain. Ball contended that the hernia statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(c), should not apply, but if it were applicable, he had proven the statute's elements.
[¶ 11] The Division contended at the contested case hearing that Ball had not filed an injury report for his hernia and thus neither the Division nor the hearing examiner had jurisdiction to award benefits. The Division further contended that § 27-14-603(c) was controlling and that Ball could not meet his
[¶ 12] At the contested case hearing, the only witness to testify was Ball. No deposition testimony was presented, and the Division did not present an independent medical evaluation. Following the contested case hearing, the hearing examiner entered his findings, conclusions and order on February 7, 2008. The hearing examiner concluded the employee was not required to submit a new injury report because his hernia was a compensable second injury. The hearing examiner agreed with the Division, however, that certain of the costs for Ball's treatment were not reimbursable because the facility that had provided the treatment had not timely submitted the reports of its treatment.
[¶ 13] The hearing examiner also agreed with the Division that the hernia statute, § 27-14-603(c), was applicable. The hearing examiner found, however, that Ball had proved all of the statutorily required elements and Ball's hernia was therefore a compensable injury. Specifically, the hearing examiner made the following relevant findings of fact:
[¶ 14] The Division appealed the hearing examiner's order to the district court. On appeal to the district court, the Division submitted only one issue, whether the hearing examiner had misapplied the elements of the hernia statute to the evidence in the case. In arguing its position, the Division contended a hernia is not compensable as a second injury unless the original injury was itself a hernia.
[¶ 15] On July 27, 2009, the district court entered its Order Reversing and Remanding Award of Benefits. In so ordering, the district court expressly deferred to the hearing examiner's findings of fact and found those were supported by substantial evidence. The district court concluded, however, that under the hernia statute, a hernia is a compensable injury only when it is the original injury. That is, the district court rejected even the Division's proposed compromise interpretation and concluded, as a matter of law, a hernia can never be compensable as a second injury.
[¶ 16] Ball timely filed his notice of appeal. On appeal, Ball again contends the hernia statute does not apply, but also argues alternatively that if the Court were to find the statute does apply, his hernia injury meets the statute's requirements for compensability. The Division has again limited its statement of the issue on appeal and has adopted the district court's reasoning. It agrees there is no evidentiary dispute for this Court to address and instead contends, as a matter of law, a hernia is never compensable as a second compensable injury.
[¶ 17] We review administrative decisions based on the factors set forth in the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides:
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2009).
Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Faulkner, 2007 WY 31, ¶ 10, 152 P.3d 394, 396 (Wyo.2007) (quoting Bailey v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2002 WY 145, ¶ 9, 55 P.3d 23, 26 (Wyo.2002) (citations omitted)).
[¶ 19] In an appeal from a district court's appellate review of an administrative decision, we review the case as if it came directly from the hearing examiner, affording no deference to the district court's decision. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Kaczmarek, 2009 WY 110, ¶ 7, 215 P.3d 277, 280 (Wyo.2009).
[¶ 20] Because Ball and the Division agree that Ball suffered a hernia injury, the sufficiency of the evidence substantiating that injury is not at issue. Likewise, the Division does not in this appeal challenge the hearing examiner's findings regarding three of the four required elements of the hernia statute, namely, the hernia was of recent origin, the appearance of the hernia was accompanied by pain, and the hernia did not exist before the date of the injury. See § 27-14-603(c)(i), (ii), and (iv). Where the parties diverge is on the third requirement of the hernia statute, § 27-14-603(c)(iii), that the hernia was sustained "in the course of the employment." There is again no factual dispute as to the circumstances of Ball's hernia injury. Instead, the parties dispute questions of law, specifically the meaning of the phrase "in the course of the employment" in the hernia statute, and the applicability of the second compensable injury rule to a hernia injury.
[¶ 21] At the outset of our discussion, we believe it is a useful starting point to address what the second compensable injury rule is and what it is not. In its brief, the Division has pointed out that where a common law remedy conflicts with a statutory remedy, the statutory remedy is controlling, citing Schlattman v. Stone, 511 P.2d 959, 961-62 (Wyo.1973). Applying this principle, the Division contends the second compensable injury rule is a common law remedy that conflicts with the hernia statute and thus cannot be applied to a hernia injury. We do not take issue with the Division's statement of the relationship between statutory and common law remedies, but we do disagree with the Division's contention that the second compensable injury rule is a "common law remedy."
[¶ 22] The Workers' Compensation Act defines the term "injury" for purposes of compensability under the Act. "Injury" means
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi) (Lexis-Nexis 2009).
[¶ 23] We have discussed the causal nexus this provision requires between an injury and the injured employee's work:
Corean v. State ex rel. Workers' Comp. Div., 723 P.2d 58, 60 (Wyo.1986); see also Haagensen v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Comp. Div., 949 P.2d 865, 867-68 (Wyo.1997). We have also stated that an "injury is not compensable if it cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing cause and if it comes from a hazard that the employee would have been equally exposed to outside of the employment." Finley v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2006 WY 46, ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 185, 188 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Bruhn, 951 P.2d 373, 377 (Wyo.1997)).
[¶ 24] The above-quoted passages are this Court's interpretations of the statutorily required causal link between an injury and the injured employee's work. The same is true of the second compensable injury rule. When a condition or injury is found compensable under the second compensable injury rule, it merely means that an initial compensable injury has resulted in an injury or condition that requires additional medical intervention. That is, under the second compensable injury rule, a subsequent injury or condition is compensable if it is causally linked to the initial compensable work injury. Alvarez v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2007 WY 126, ¶ 18, 164 P.3d 548, 552 (Wyo.2007); Yenne-Tully v. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 12 P.3d 170, 172 (Wyo.2000). We recently explained the second compensable injury rule and its required causation:
Kaczmarek, ¶ 11 n. 3, 215 P.3d at 282 n. 3.
[¶ 25] That the second compensable rule is a causation analysis, and not a court-created benefit or remedy, is clear from the manner in which this Court has applied the rule. See, e.g., Chavez v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2009 WY 46, ¶¶ 26-27, 204 P.3d 967, 973-74 (Wyo.2009) (recognizing rule that subsequent injury is compensable if it is causally related to initial compensable work injury and upholding Medical Commission's factual finding that the required causal link did not exist between original work-related injury and subsequent back surgery); Nagle v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2008 WY 99, ¶ 38, 190 P.3d 159, 173 (Wyo.2008) (applying second compensable injury rule to find causal link between original work injury to foot and wrist and hip injuries sustained
[¶ 26] This Court's analysis in other cases involving the application of the second compensable injury rule proceeds in much this same vein. It is thus clear that the second compensable injury rule is not a common law remedy. It is simply an expression of this Court's interpretation of the causal link required between an employee's work and original work injury and any related and subsequently developed injury or condition.
[¶ 27] We therefore reject the Division's argument that the rule cannot be applied where there is a statute governing a particular injury or condition. We now turn to the Division's remaining argument that the language of the hernia statute limits compensability of a hernia injury to those instances where the hernia is the original injury and the hernia occurred in the work place.
[¶ 28] The Division and Ball disagree whether the hernia statute applies and, if it does apply, how it should be interpreted. The hernia statute provides as follows:
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(c) (LexisNexis 2009).
[¶ 29] In interpreting the hernia statute, to determine both its applicability and its meaning, we apply our usual rules of statutory interpretation.
Loberg v. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2004 WY 48, ¶ 5, 88 P.3d 1045, ¶ 5 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Board of County Comm'rs of Teton County v. Crow, 2003 WY 40, ¶¶ 40-41, 65 P.3d 720, ¶¶ 40-41 (Wyo.2003)). Only if we determine the language of a statute is ambiguous will we proceed to the next step, which involves applying general principles of statutory construction to the language of the statute in order to construe any ambiguous language to accurately reflect the intent of the legislature. If this Court determines that the language of the statute is not ambiguous, there is no room for further construction. We will apply the language of the statute using its ordinary and obvious meaning.
State v. Hanover Compression, LP, 2008 WY 138, ¶ 8, 196 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo.2008) (quoting BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 2005 WY 60, ¶ 15, 112 P.3d 596, 604 (Wyo.2005)).
[¶ 30] The Division contends that the hernia statute applies anytime the injury at issue is a hernia. Ball on the other hand contends that the statute applies only where the hernia at issue is the original work injury. We agree with the Division and conclude, as the hearing examiner did, that the hernia statute unambiguously requires an employee's injury to satisfy all criteria in the statute to be compensable. The statute does not create any exceptions to its application, and we would have to read terms into the statute to create an exception for hernias that are second compensable injuries, something we will not do. See Parker v. Artery, 889 P.2d 520, 528 (Wyo.1995) (legislature's omission of language from statute construed as intentional).
[¶ 31] Having determined the statute is applicable, we turn then to the parties' contentions concerning its meaning. The present dispute is centered on the meaning of the phrase "in the course of the employment," as it is used in the third element of the hernia statute. See § 27-14-603(c)(iii). Ball contends that "in the course of employment" means a hernia is compensable if it is found to be causally related to the employee's original work injury, assuming all of the other elements of the statute are met. The Division on the other hand contends that the phrase means the hernia must have been the original injury and must have occurred in the workplace to be compensable. We find Ball's position to be the more persuasive as it is in keeping with the plain language and context of the hernia statute, as well as the legislative intent.
[¶ 32] It is clear at the outset that the legislature did not expressly state, as it certainly could have, that a hernia must be suffered in the workplace, and be the original work injury, to be compensable. We note with interest that in the same statute addressing a hernia, the legislature also addresses employment-related coronary conditions and has written "[t]he causative exertion occurs
[¶ 33] Plainly, if the legislature had meant to say "at the workplace" or "at work" in the hernia statute, it would have done so. The language is not only shorter, but quite specific. We think such language would have come naturally to any draftsman, unless that draftsman really intended to say something different from "at the workplace" or "at work." In keeping with our rules of statutory interpretation, we will not supply those terms or read them into the statute. It follows then that the only way we may accept the Division's proposed interpretation of
[¶ 34] The "in the course of employment" language is used elsewhere in the Act, and because our rules of interpretation mandate that we construe statutes in pari materia and must consider and construe in harmony all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, the legislature's use of the language elsewhere in the Act will be our starting point for determining the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the hernia statute. In particular, the Act defines an injury as one "arising out of and
[¶ 35] As noted in our earlier discussion, this Court has addressed on numerous occasions the type of causal requirement that is created by the Act's use of the phrase "arising out of and in the course of employment." With respect to the separate components of the phrase, we have held that there is no distinction to be drawn between "arising out of employment" and "in the course of employment." Corean, 723 P.2d at 60. In Corean, we stated:
Id. (emphasis added).
[¶ 36] In Corean, this Court not only adhered to its prior refusal to recognize a distinction between the phrases "arising out of employment" and "in the course of employment," it also rejected the suggestion that the place where an employee's injury occurred is a definitive factor in determining whether that injury arose out of or in the course of employment. Our words bear repeating:
Id.
[¶ 37] We see no reason to depart from our holding in Corean. The phrases "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment, together or separately, mean the same thing. Thus, the phrase "in the course of the employment" as used in the hernia statute means the same thing it means elsewhere in the Act. A hernia, like any other injury, is compensable if there exists "a nexus between the injury and some condition, activity, environment or requirement of the employment." See Corean, 723 P.2d at 60. And, a hernia, like any other injury, is compensable whether it occurs on or off the premises of the employer, as long as the required nexus exists between the employee's work and the hernia. Id.; see also Alvarez, ¶ 27, 164 P.3d at 555 ("[w]hat matters is not where the employee was or the nature of the triggering event, but whether the initial compensable injury ripened into a condition requiring additional medical intervention and whether the subsequent injury was causally related to the initial compensable injury").
[¶ 39] This interpretation does not undermine the purpose to be achieved by the restrictions on the compensability of hernia injuries. This Court has previously discussed the legislative purpose behind the statute limiting the compensability of hernia injuries:
Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Frihauf, 58 Wyo. 479, 494-96, 135 P.2d 427, 432-433 (1943).
[¶ 40] The primary goal of the hernia provision, as recognized by this Court in Frihauf, is to restrict compensation for hernia injuries to those hernias that are work related and are reported in a sufficiently timely manner that the Division and the employer have an adequate opportunity to evaluate the causal link between the hernia and the employee's work. Given the meaning we have always given the phrase "in the course of employment," the Division is left in a position in which it may make the required
[¶ 41] As further evidence that our interpretation does not offend the legislative intent in using the phrase "in the course of employment," we note that this Court has for years interpreted the phrase in the manner discussed above. During that time, the legislature has not changed the definition or enhanced the hernia statute to limit compensability to injuries that occur in the workplace. We thus conclude that the legislature has acquiesced in the interpretation we have given the phrase "in the course of employment," as that phrase is used throughout the Act, including in the hernia statute. See In the Interest of ANO, 2006 WY 74, ¶ 14, 136 P.3d 797, 801 (Wyo.2006).
[¶ 42] We find that if there is any disservice to the legislative intent, it is in the statutory interpretation urged by the Division. The Division, in its brief on appeal and again during oral argument, agreed that there is no factual dispute concerning the events that led to Ball's hernia. The Division further stated it does not take issue with the hearing examiner's finding that Ball's hernia was caused by Ball's original work injury. Instead, the Division contends the hernia statute makes this a unique case where that causal relationship is immaterial because the statute bars benefits for any hernia injury unless the injury is the original injury and occurred in the workplace. The Division went so far as to argue that if the injury Ball suffered when his spinal stimulator malfunctioned had been something other than a hernia, a broken limb, for example, the injury would have been compensable.
[¶ 43] The Division's interpretation produces an absurd result, and we have repeatedly held that we will reject statutory interpretations that lead to absurd results. See Stutzman v. Office of Wyoming State Engineer, 2006 WY 30, ¶ 16, 130 P.3d 470, 475 (Wyo.2006); Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 226 (Wyo.1991). That the legislature did not intend such a result is further evidenced by the legislature's express statement that at least part of its intention in enacting the Act was to ensure benefit claims would be decided on their merits. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-101(b) (LexisNexis 2009) ("[i]t is the specific intent of the legislature that benefit claims cases be decided on their merits"). The Division's proposed bright line rule, that a hernia must occur in the workplace and be the original work injury, disregards the merits of an actual causal relationship between a hernia injury and the employee's work and thus achieves a result opposite of that intended by the legislature.
[¶ 44] As a final matter, we address the Division's contention that the hearing examiner's finding of compensability was an improper application of the "quasi-employment doctrine" that this Court rejected in Bruhn. Again, we disagree. In Bruhn, this Court rejected the "quasi-employment doctrine" because it was viewed as a doctrine that would allow compensation for an injury that could not be fairly traced to the employee's work and that the employee would have been equally exposed to outside of the employment. Bruhn, 951 P.2d at 377. This is not a concern in the present case.
[¶ 45] The hearing examiner applied the clear and convincing burden of proof required by the hernia statute and found Ball had met this elevated burden. He found Ball had presented clear and convincing proof of the causal link between the malfunction of his spinal stimulator, which was implanted to treat the original work injury, and his subsequent fall and hernia. Because the Division does not contest this finding, it cannot suggest that the concern we expressed in Bruhn is at play in this case. The harm to which Ball was exposed was one that occurred only because of the medical treatment he received for a work injury. The medical treatment Ball received for his work injury caused his hernia, and the hernia was therefore a compensable second injury. See Rodgers v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp.
[¶ 46] The hearing examiner did not rely on the quasi-employment doctrine in finding a causal connection between Ball's original work injury and his hernia. There was, therefore, no error related to that doctrine.
[¶ 47] The hearing examiner's finding that the authorized medical treatment for Ball's original work injury caused his subsequent hernia is uncontested, and the district court erred in holding that benefits were barred on the ground that the second compensable injury rule could not be applied. We reverse and remand to the district court for a remand to the Office of Administrative Hearings for reinstatement of the hearing examiner's original order awarding benefits.
