Claim of Decker v. Wyoming Medical Commission
Wyoming Supreme Court
191 P.3d 105 (2008)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
Daniel Decker (plaintiff) was a sheet-metal worker and began working for Mountain Aire in October 2000. Duties included fabrication, assembly, and installation of ductwork. In August 2001, while pulling tin out from under a bench, Decker felt his wrist pop. Decker then felt his other wrist pop shortly after when snipping the corners of a piece of tin. Decker filed for workers’-compensation benefits for a work-related aggravation of symptoms associated with thoracic outlet syndrome. The Workers’ Compensation Division denied the claim, and the case was referred to the Wyoming Medical Commission (the medical commission) (defendant) for a hearing with a medical panel. Between the time of injury and the hearing, Decker was examined by nine physicians and one psychologist, including two independent medical examiners. The medical panel relied mostly on the independent medical examinations and found Decker’s testimony not credible. The medical panel discounted the testimony of Decker’s treating physicians, determining that it was based on contradicting the medical history provided by Decker. After the hearing, the medical commission upheld the denial of benefits. Decker appealed, arguing that there was a violation of his due-process rights. Decker argued there was a violation because the medical panel did not deliberate its decision in a public meeting and did not allow him to present additional evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Golden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.