Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was charged while driving under the influence. The Wyoming Department of Transportation suspended Appellant's driver's license. Appellant appealed, arguing that she had not been properly advised as to implied consent. The Office of Administrative Hearings upheld the suspension. Appellant sought review of the administrative suspension in the district court, raising a number of constitutional challenges to a municipal criminal ordinance in addition to the claim that she had not been properly advised under the implied consent statute. The district court concluded (1) the constitutional issues raised by Appellant had not and could have been raised in the administrative hearing, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims; and (2) Appellant was properly advised as to implied consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing officer correctly determined that Appellant was properly advised as required by statute; and (2) Appellant's other claims were not and could have been presented in a license suspension proceeding. View "Walters v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

The manager of the Wyoming Universal Service Fund (WUSF) filed confidential reports with the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) containing his recommendations for the WUSF assessment level for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Upon notice from the PSC that public hearings would be held to consider the manager's reports, Qwest asked for contested case hearings. The PSC denied Qwest's requests, concluding that WUSF proceedings are legislative in nature. The PSC subsequently issued orders establishing the WUSF assessment levels as recommended by the manager. The Office of Consumer Advocate and Qwest filed petitions for review of the PSC order. The district court held that the PSC erred in denying Qwest's requests for contested case hearings, reversed the administrative orders, and ordered portions of the 2009 data to be provided to Qwest but denied the request for 2010 data. Four notices of appeal from the district court's order were filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Qwest was entitled to contested case hearings before the PSC. Remanded for contested case hearings. View "Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wyo. v. Qwest Corp." on Justia Law

Appellant injured her neck and shoulder in a work-related accident. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division approved Appellant's application for temporary total disability benefits but denied payments of two medical bills related to Appellant's lower back, concluding that the case was only left open for shoulder and neck injury. The office of administrative hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits. Appellant appealed. While on review in the district court, Appellant's counsel discovered documentation of a physical therapy session held approximately one month after Appellant's workplace accident that indicated she was experiencing pain in the middle of her back. Appellant unsuccessfully filed a motion to supplement the record with the physical therapy record. Appellant subsequently dismissed her appeal. Appellant then filed a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from final judgment based on the physical therapy record. The OAH denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant provided no evidence to support her claim that the failure to introduce the physical therapy record was caused by her trial counsel's mistake or inadvertence, and (2) Appellant failed to prove the significance of the medical record to her claim for benefits relating to her low back. View "Tegeler v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved Cimarex Energy Company's plan to reinject waste carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide into a producing natural gas formation in southwest Wyoming over the objection of Exxon Mobil Corporation. Exxon appealed. The district court affirmed the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the Commission properly denied Exxon's petition for a rehearing; but (2) the Commission failed to provide sufficient findings of fact as to whether Cimarex's plan to reinject carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide would result in waste of natural gas and improperly interfere with Exxon's correlative rights. Remanded to the Commission to make appropriate findings of both basic and ultimate facts. View "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Wyo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n" on Justia Law

Appellant, who worked for the Wyoming Department of Corrections, sustained significant injuries during a vehicle rollover while driving to pick up a prisoner. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division awarded Appellant a partial impairment award, after which Appellant applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The Division denied her application, finding that she did not meet the statutory definition of PTD. The Medical Commission concluded that Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that she was entitled to PTD benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant presented a prima facie case showing that she was unemployable in her community due to her injuries, and the Division failed to rebut this showing by demonstrating that there was in fact gainful employment available to her within a reasonable geographic area. Remanded. View "Stallman v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellee sustained a compensable neck injury and, despite four separate surgeries to address it, never returned to work. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division paid Appellee temporary total disability (TTD) benefits for thirty-six months, the maximum period allowed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 27-14-404(a) and the Division's rules. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) awarded additional TTD benefits to Appellee, finding that each of Appellee's four separate surgeries was a second compensable injury, thus extending the amount of time the Division could pay TTD benefits. The district court affirmed the OAH's orders, and the Division appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) under section 27-14-404(a) and the Division's rules, receipt of temporary total disability benefits is limited to a maximum period of thirty-six months; (2) under section 404(a), this limitation applies to all injuries resulting from any one incident or accident, encompassing situations in which the claimant receives multiple injuries simultaneously or a subsequent compensable injury as the result of a single workplace accident; and (3) because Appellee received benefits for a period of thirty-six months as a result of a single workplace accident, he was not entitled to receive additional TTD benefits. View "State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division determined that Appellant suffered a compensable injury while employed by Employer. The lodge filed an objection to that determination and requested a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Appellant filed a motion to dismiss that objection on the grounds that the objection was invalid because Employer was not a proper party to the action. The OAH denied Appellant's motion and concluded that Appellant had not suffered a compensable injury. The district court affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Employer properly filed an objection to the Division's final determination of compensability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employer was a proper party to the action because it was the identified employer and paid the necessary contributions under Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. View "Heikkila v. Signal Mountain Lodge" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in a work-related accident in 1996. In 2009, Appellant was diagnosed with a labral tear in his left shoulder. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Appellant's request for payments for the treatment of the labral tear, determining that the current condition of Appellant's left shoulder was not due to the 1996 work-related accident. The Office of Administrative Hearings affirmed the denial. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division's decision that the injury was not causally connected to a work-related accident was supported by substantial evidence. View "Hampton v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

After Appellant was terminated from his employment with Employer, Appellant applied for and was granted unemployment benefits. Employer appealed. After a hearing, a hearing examiner affirmed and found that Appellant was entitled to unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed, finding that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the Commission acted within its authority when it reviewed and reversed the hearing examiner's decision to grant Appellant unemployment benefits; and (2) the Commission's determination that Appellant was terminated for engaging in misconduct and was thereby not entitled to unemployment benefits was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Koch v. Dep't of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Landowners' neighbors filed with the Board of County Commissioners a petition for establishment of a county road along an unsurveyed legal description that closely equated to Landowners' driveway. The Board dismissed the petition, determining that Landowners' driveway already was part of a previously established county road. The district court remanded to the Board to conduct a survey of the county road to determine whether Landowners' driveway was indeed part of the county road. Upon remand, rather than obtaining a survey of the driveway or county road as ordered, the Board declared that the driveway was part of the county road. The district court again remanded. Some time later, the county attorney informed Landowners that the Board did not intend to change its position that Landowners' driveway was part of the existing county road. Landowners sued the Board for inverse condemnation, trespass, and ejectment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that the inverse condemnation claims were barred by limitations and that the trespass and ejectment claims failed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed the district court as to the inverse condemnation claims, holding that Landowners' claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Remanded. View "Smith v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law