Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2013, William Rogers was working for Russell Construction Company (Russell) when he claimed to have fallen against a ledge of old concrete. In 2014, the Workers' Compensation Division issued a determination that Rogers had suffered a compensable injury. Russell objected to that determination, arguing that the claim was fraudulent. A hearing officer with the Office of Administrative Hearing denied Rogers’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits, concluding that Rogers had not proved that he suffered a compensable injury in 2013. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing examiner’s determinations of fact were reasonable and based on substantial evidence. View "Rogers v. Russell Constr. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was discharged from her position as high school principal of the St. Stephens Indian School for “not promptly assessing a student who was potentially intoxicated and allowing the student to remain in class while [Petitioner] left the building.” Petitioner applied for unemployment insurance benefits. A deputy for the Unemployment Insurance Division denied Petitioner’s claim, determining that she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work. On appeal, a hearing officer ruled that Petitioner was discharged from her unemployment but not for misconduct connected with her work. The Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed. The district court reversed, ruling that the Commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record did not support a conclusion that Petitioner’s action was anything more than ordinary negligence or a good faith error in judgment. View "State ex rel., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Kinneman" on Justia Law

Appellant Mary Leib sought benefits from the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division after she developed abscesses in her breasts. Leib was employed as a maintenance worker for Laramie County Community College in Cheyenne. She began working on the grounds of the College in April 2012. As part of her duties as a groundskeeper, Leib was required to work with dirt that was mixed with untreated manure from livestock kept on campus and from traveling circus animals. In June 2012, approximately two weeks after she began planting flowers using the dirt and manure mixture, Leib experienced pain and swelling in both of her breasts. She sought treatment at the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with mastitis. Upon returning to work, the swelling developed again. The second time she sought treatment, her surgical incisions split open. Subsequent cultures indicated that several different types of peptostreptococcus bacteria were present. The Division denied the claim. The Medical Commission upheld the Division’s determination after finding that she had not met her burden of proving that her condition was related to her employment. Leib appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Medical Commission’s order. She challenged the district court’s decision in this appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of the Worker's Compensation Claim of: Leib v. Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

Appellant, a long-term Game & Fish employee, was terminated after two disciplinary suspensions and her filing of a complaint alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, grieving the disciplinary suspensions, and filing a charge of discrimination. The Office of Administrative Hearings concluded that “good cause” supported the disciplinary actions and that they were supported by substantial evidence. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no facts asserted by Appellant adequately supported a due process claim “of such a fundamental nature that it must be considered” for the first time on appeal; and (2) Appellant failed to preserve her claim that her suspensions were issued without authority. View "Crofts v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Game & Fish" on Justia Law

During the 2011-2012 school year, Plaintiff was a continuing contract teacher who worked for the Laramie County School District No. One. In spring of 2012, the District Superintendent gave Plaintiff notice that he proposed that Kinstler be terminated. On September 4, 2012, a hearing officer recommended that the District accept the Superintendent’s proposal. On September 17, 2012, the District’s Board of Trustees voted to accept the recommendation. Kinstler was paid his normal salary from August 15, 2012, the date he would have started to work, through the date that the Board acted on the recommendation to terminate him. Kinstler subsequently sued the District, asserting that the District failed to pay him the salary and value of benefits allegedly owed him for the 2012-2013 academic year. The district court partially granted Kinstler’s motion for summary judgment and entered an order with respect to his salary and benefits claim. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the award, holding that because Kinstler’s termination was effective at the end of the 2011-2012 school year, he had no statutory right to compensation following that date. View "Laramie County Sch. Dist. v. Kinstler" on Justia Law

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company (MDU) was ordered by the Wyoming Public Service Commission to make refunds of the amounts MDU had overcharged its customers because of improper calculations and adjustments to its commodity balancing account. MDU filed a petition for review, challenging the legal authority of the Commission to order refunds. The district court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the rule against retroactive ratemaking did not preclude the Commission from ordering the refund; (2) the Commission’s refund order did not violate the file rate doctrine; (3) the Commission was not subject to a statute of limitations in this case; (4) MDU failed to show that the Commission was equitably estopped from ordering a refund; and (5) the Commission’s action was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful. View "Montana-Dakota Utils., Co. v. Wyo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Wyoming Public Records Act, Plaintiff requested from the Office of the Governor and the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (together, the State) documents related to the status of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. The State provided some documents and withheld others on grounds of the deliberative process privilege and the attorney-client communication privilege. The district court held (1) the Act incorporates the deliberative process privilege as a ground to exempt documents from disclosure under the Act, and the documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege were properly withheld by the State; and (2) two of the three documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege were properly withheld. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s ruling with respect to the documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege; (2) affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Act incorporates the deliberate process privilege; but (3) concluded that some of the documents withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege were not properly withheld because they were outside the scope of the privilege’s protection. View "Aland v. Mead" on Justia Law

Roger Seherr-Thoss (RST) owned and operated a gravel operation since at least 1977. In 1978, Teton County enacted its first Land and Development Regulations (LDRs). In 2011, Teton County issued RST an amended "notice to abate" requiring RST to reduce his production levels to pre-1978 levels because the business had expanded in volume and footprint since the LDRs were adopted. After a contested case hearing, the Teton County Board of County Commissioners entered an order recognizing that all aspects of RST’s gravel crushing and extraction operations were grandfathered but requiring RST to reduce its operation to its 1978 extent. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board’s order was an improper agency determination and exercise of authority. View "Seherr-Thoss v. Teton County Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Robert and Beverly Bernard sought a special exemption to operate a bed and breakfast in an area that was zoned as an R-1 Residence District. The Board of Adjustments approved the Bernards’ application, but the district court reversed because the agency failed to comply with its own rules and procedures. The Bernards subsequently filed a second application for a special exemption that differed from the first in that it included an approved parking plan and a certificate of occupancy. Timothy and Carole Tarver objected, claiming that the Bernards’ second application was barred by res judicata. The Board concluded that the second application was not barred by res judicata and granted the Bernards’ application with conditions. The Tarvers appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Bernards’ second application for a special exemption was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (2) the Board had the authority to impose parking restrictions on the bed and breakfast as a condition of granting the special exemption; and (3) the Board properly applied its discretion in concluding that the Bernards were entitled to a special exemption. View "Tarver v. Bd. of Adjustments" on Justia Law

Erin Clements was injured at work and received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for twelve months. Clements subsequently obtained an extension of TTD benefits for the statutory maximum of twelve months. When Clements applied for additional TTD benefits, the Worker’s Safety and Compensation Division denied her claim because she had received all the TTD benefits to which she was entitled under Wyoming law and Division rules. Clements filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Division exceeded its authority when it limited the extension of TTD benefits to twelve months. The district court granted declaratory relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division exceeded its authority when it adopted a rule setting a maximum number of months TTD benefits are payable under any circumstances. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs. v. Clements" on Justia Law