GOLDEN, Justice.
[¶ 1] The Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division (Division) denied Rick D. Bodily (Bodily) benefits for medical expenses related to his L5-S1 micro-lumbar discectomy performed by Dr. Debra Steele on January 8, 2008, because Division determined Mr. Bodily's medical treatment to his lower back after June 2, 2005, was not related to his compensable work-related back injuries of March 11, 1996, and July 8, 2004. Mr. Bodily requested a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to challenge Division's denial of benefits. Before conducting the hearing, OAH granted Division's motion for summary judgment against Mr. Bodily. On review of that decision, the district court affirmed.
[¶ 2] On appeal to this Court, Mr. Bodily contends that genuine issues of material fact about causation of the disc herniation exist and asks that we reverse and remand for a contested case hearing. We agree with Mr. Bodily's contention, reverse OAH's summary judgment, and remand to the district court for remand to OAH for a contested case hearing.
[¶ 3] The deep issue
[¶ 4] In keeping with our standard of review, cited below, we shall consider the record in the perspective most favorable to Mr. Bodily and give him the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be fairly drawn from the record. In March 1996, Mr. Bodily injured his lower back while working for JTL Group in Casper, Wyoming. According to Mr. Bodily:
The Division found the March 1996 injury was work related and awarded benefits.
[¶ 5] Although Mr. Bodily received treatment for his work-related injury, he continued to suffer low back pain. According to Mr. Bodily, the "low back pain from [his original] injury [had] never really stopped," and "[s]ince 1996, [he] always had back pain, it just continued to get worse." Over the years, Mr. Bodily treated his low back pain as conservatively as possible until it became intolerable which led him to see his family physician and a chiropractor for treatment of the low back pain.
[¶ 6] In 2004, Mr. Bodily reinjured his "lower back from twisting while lifting a box in the main office at work." Because he reinjured his back, he "attempted to have the medical treatment paid for under his 1996 initial case but in October 2004 a new case was opened at the suggestion of the Division." Despite a new case being opened, the Division determined he had suffered a compensable work-related injury and awarded benefits. He continued to receive benefits until June 2, 2005.
[¶ 7] In October 2005, Mr. Bodily reinjured his back "after lifting a car with three other guys at work (the car had to be moved to do asphalt work)." He continued to treat his low back pain conservatively until the pain became intolerable. Once it became intolerable, he saw his family physician and a chiropractor for treatment. His intolerable low back pain was located in the same area of his back as his original compensable work-related injuries.
Dr. Steele testified that "bending while twisting is one of the biggest culprits for causing disc problems." She also testified in her deposition as follows:
Later, Dr. Steele testified as follows:
[¶ 9] Dr. Steele sent her bill for Mr. Bodily's surgery to Division. On January 28, 2008, Division issued a "Final Determination Regarding Denial of Benefits," denying payment for medical bills related to the January 9, 2008, operation. Division determined that Mr. Bodily's work injury of July 8, 2004, had resolved, and that any treatment to his back after June 2, 2005, was unrelated to that injury. Mr. Bodily objected to Division's determination, and the matter was referred to OAH on February 28, 2008.
[¶ 10] A contested case hearing was scheduled; however, prior to the contested case hearing, Division filed a motion for summary judgment. Mr. Bodily opposed Division's motion for summary judgment. Without holding oral arguments on the motion, OAH issued "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Vacating Hearing" (Order). In its Order, OAH affirmed Division's denial of benefits.
[¶ 11] Mr. Bodily timely appealed OAH's Order to the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District. Following briefing by the parties, the district court issued its "Decision Letter," which affirmed OAH's Order and Division's denial of benefits. Mr. Bodily timely filed his "Notice of Appeal" appealing the district court's "Order Affirming Agency Decision" to this Court.
[¶ 12] "As always, we review an agency's conclusions of law de novo, and we will affirm an agency's legal conclusion only if it is in accordance with the law." Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d 554, 561-62 (Wyo.2008) (internal quotations omitted). Review of administrative agency action granting summary judgment in workers' compensation cases will be governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c). Chavez v. Mem'l Hosp. of Sweetwater Cty., 2006 WY 82, ¶ 6, 138 P.3d 185, 188 (Wyo.2006).
W.R.C.P. 56(c). "The record is reviewed . . . from the vantage point most favorable to the party who opposed the motion, and this Court will give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record." Chavez, ¶ 6, 138 P.3d at 188.
[¶ 13] The essence of OAH's summary judgment decision in favor of Division is found in paragraphs 24 through 27 of the conclusions of law in its order:
[¶ 14] Mr. Bodily agrees that his case is a "second compensable injury case," in that in a contested case hearing he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Steele's treatment of his herniated disc was the direct result of his work-related lifting and twisting lower back injuries of 1996 and/or 2004. As we stated in Ball v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 128, ¶ 25, 239 P.3d 621, 628 (Wyo.2010), "the second compensable rule is a causation analysis." Mr. Bodily correctly observes that to avoid Division's motion for summary judgment, he need only demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact about causation exists. He argues that he has done just that through his own affidavit and Dr. Steele's deposition testimony. He argues that OAH erred when it concluded that "medical evidence is required to establish causation for [Mr.] Bodily's herniated disc" and that "[Mr.] Bodily's herniated disc is most likely to have resulted from his outside work activities and not from his work injuries in 1996 or 2004." In support of his argument, Mr. Bodily relies on Gray v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2008 WY 115, 193 P.3d 246 (Wyo.2008). Mr. Gray suffered a compensable work-related back strain and contusion injury when he fell off a horse in mid-June 2002. Id., ¶ 3, 193 P.3d at 248. No MRI was performed at that time. Id., ¶ 7, 193 P.3d at 249. In early September 2002, an MRI revealed a disc herniation. Id., ¶ 8, 193 P.3d at 249. Gray informed his doctor that his back had been bothering him ever since the fall from the horse and increasing in intensity. Id. In November and December 2002, Division investigated information from an anonymous source that Gray had injured his back in September while moving hay in his backyard. Id., ¶ 11, 193 P.3d at 250. Division also had obtained information from Gray's ex-girlfriend that Gray's back popped in mid-July while he was unloading hay at his home. Id. In addition, Division had information from a man who had loaded hay with Gray a month or two after Gray's fall from the horse and from a man who had worked with Gray on a roofing job a month after Gray's fall from the horse, both of whom related that Gray complained of back and leg pain during those activities. Id., ¶ 12, 193 P.3d at 250. In early December 2002, Division refused further benefit payments to Gray, having determined that his herniated disc was not caused by a work-related incident. Id., ¶ 4, 193 P.3d at 248. At the contested case hearing, Division
[¶ 15] On Gray's appeal, this Court reversed, holding that OAH's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence. Id., ¶ 6, 193 P.3d at 249. Of particular interest to Mr. Bodily's appeal is this Court's holding in Gray that OAH erred when it required Mr. Gray to present conclusive medical testimony in order to meet his burden of proof. Id., ¶¶ 16-17, 193 P.3d at 251-52. Addressing OAH's conclusion that Mr. Gray could not meet his burden of proof because Dr. Skene's medical opinion was expressed in terms of "can," "could," or "possibly," we said:
Gray, ¶ 17, 193 P.3d at 251-52 (emphasis added). Mr. Bodily argues that OAH in his case erred in the same way that OAH in Gray erred, namely, by concluding that "medical evidence is required to establish causation for [Mr.] Bodily's herniated disc and the only medical evidence presented was from Dr. Steele. Dr. Steele was unable to date the herniated disc and admitted the work incident in 2004 and a number of outside work activities could have caused [Mr.] Bodily's herniated disc."
[¶ 16] We agree. Moreover, when OAH stated that it considered "all the evidence" and concluded Mr. Bodily's herniated disc "is most likely to have resulted from his outside work activities and not from his work injuries in 1996 or 2004," OAH erroneously strayed from its function at the summary judgment stage to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact as to causation existed, giving the non-movant, Mr. Bodily, the benefit of all favorable inferences, and OAH erroneously engaged in weighing all the evidence and making credibility determinations. OAH was erroneously acting as the trier of fact which was not its judicial function at the summary judgment stage of this contested case. The main issue in this case—whether Mr. Bodily's work-related back injuries in 1996 and 2004 are causally connected to his 2008 herniated disc surgery—is in factual dispute, and the evidence presented to OAH, including Mr. Bodily's testimony and Dr.
[¶ 17] We reverse the summary judgment in favor of Division and remand to the district court for remand to OAH for a contested case hearing.
Division stated this issue:
Mr. Bodily's reply brief stated this issue: