Brian John Hunter's Legal Cases (3)

Workers compensation

In re Hall, 2018 WY 35 414 P.3d 622 (Wyo. 2018)

Mar 30, 2018

OUTCOME: The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed and upheld my client's right to TTD benefits.

Approximately six years after receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a workplace injury to his right knee, my client underwent another knee surgery, approved by the State of Wyoming Workers’ Comp ... ensation Division (the Division). The Division denied my client's application for temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, alleging that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-605(b) terminated his right to TTD benefits. On summary judgment, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) did not uphold the Division’s determination, concluding that § 27-14-605 did not govern Mr. Hall’s claim and Mr. Hall was entitled to TTD benefits as a matter of law. The district court affirmed the OAH’s judgment, and the Division appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court which affirmed and upheld my client's right to TTD benefits.

Workers compensation

Stallman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2013 WY 28, 297 P.3d 82 (Wyo. 2013)

Mar 12, 2013

OUTCOME: This case was reversed and remanded for an award of Permanent Total Disability (PTD) Benefits.

This was the second case that we took all the way to the Wyoming Supreme Court for this client. She worked for the Wyoming Department of Corrections at the Wyoming Women's Center in Lusk, Wyoming. She ... sustained significant injuries during a vehicle rollover while driving to pick up a prisoner in Sheridan. After receiving a 22% permanent partial impairment award from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division (the Division), she applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The Division denied her application, finding that she did not meet the statutory definition of permanent total disability. She requested a contested case hearing, and the case was referred to a panel of the Medical Commission (the Commission or panel). Based upon the evidence presented, the Commission concluded that she did not meet her burden of proving that she was entitled to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. The district court affirmed, and we appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Commission's final order was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to applicable law due to improper application of the odd lot doctrine. The Supreme Court held that she did in fact present evidence showing that she was unemployable in her community due to her injuries, and that the Division failed to rebut this showing by demonstrating that there was in fact gainful employment available to her within a reasonable geographic area. This case was reversed and remanded for an award of PTD Benefits.

Workers compensation

Worker's Compensation Claim of Stallman v. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2012 WY 147, 288 P.3d 707, (Wyo. 2012)

Nov 20, 2012

OUTCOME: The Supreme Court reversed and sent this case back in favor of my client.

In this case, my client was injured in a car accident that occurred in the course of her employment. After receiving a 22% permanent partial impairment award from the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Divi ... sion (Division), she sought permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. The Division denied her application stating that she had not complied with the statutory work search requirements. She timely filed her objection and requested a contested case hearing. Both parties submitted motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) concluded as a matter of law that Ms. Stallman had not timely submitted documentation showing she had sought work and granted summary judgment for the Division. We sought review in the Wyoming District Court, which affirmed the OAH's ruling. We then appealed to Wyoming Supreme Court, claiming the OAH ruling granting the Division's summary judgment motion was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the evidence. We argued that the Division improperly denied her application for benefits when she did not submit her work search documentation on the date it arbitrarily imposed— a date weeks before the statutory deadline for submitting her application. We also argued that the OAH erred in upholding the denial based upon its incorrect finding that she had failed to provide the required work search documentation. The Supreme Court held that my client's work search submission was timely. and that she was entitled to a hearing and the opportunity to present evidence showing that she actively sought work. The Court reversed the district court's order affirming the OAH's order granting the Division's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained