Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal involved the issuance by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Qualify (DEQ) of two general permits for the discharge of produced water from coal bed methane operations. A petroleum corporation and oil company (Appellants) appealed the DEQ's decision to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC). The Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) also sought review of the DEQ's decision to issue the general permits. The EQC rejected WOC's claim that general permits were rules and had to be promulgated through the rulemaking procedures set forth in the Wyoming APA. The district court reversed, determining that DEQ was required to promulgate the general permits as rules. The district court also rejected the argument by Appellants that WOC was not entitled to seek EQC review of the DEQ's decision to issue the general permits, ruling that the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act did allow WOC to seek administrative review by the EQC. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) DEQ was not required to promulgate the general permits as administrative rules; and (2) WOC was entitled to EQC review of DEQ's decision to issue the general permits. View "Wyo. Dep't of Env't Quality v. Wyo. Outdoor Council " on Justia Law

Appellant received disability benefits due to a work-related injury. Those benefits were terminated as a result of Appellant's incarceration. Following his release, Appellant applied for reinstatement of the benefits. Although that application was initially denied, benefits were awarded following a contested case hearing. At that time, Appellant filed one application for retroactive benefits for the period during which his prior claim was contested and two additional applications for separate periods of prospective benefits. The office of administrative hearings denied all three claims for failure to comply with the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act (Act). The district court affirmed the denial of two of those applications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's applications for temporary total disability benefits did not comply with the Act because a health care provider did not perform a separate physical examination for each of Appellant's applications as required by the Act. View "Talbot v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Ricky D. Miller challenged a hearing examiner's order upholding his per se driver's license suspension. In his only issue, Miller argued that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr's (the test administrator) operator permit for the test equipment was not valid. Miller argued that the evidence established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her certification and should have been decertified. Considering the applicable statues and Wyoming's relevant case law under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the DOH's Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator's permit in this case was valid because the state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. "Certainly, there is tension between the quoted rule and the DOH rule . . . However, we conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller's earlier appeal." The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed, and Miller's per se driver's license suspension stood. View "Miller v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

After stopping Patrick R. Espinoza for failing to maintain a single lane of travel while driving on Interstate 80 (I-80) in Laramie, an Albany County Sheriff's deputy arrested Mr. Espinoza for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) suspended Mr. Espinoza's driver's license, and he objected. At the contested case hearing, Mr. Espinoza claimed the deputy was not justified in stopping him. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension, and the district court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for the traffic violation and affirmed.

PRG (Father) appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his four minor children. Father contended that the district court erred when it refused to use his proposed jury verdict form. He also claimed that the State Department of Family Services (DFS) presented insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights and challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Father's proposed verdict form. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights.

HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which set out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and accordingly affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights.

This appeal arose out of Ryan Dorman's petition for an extension of his worker's compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne to obtain medical care. In May 2006, Dorman sought treatment from an Idaho physician for treatment of his alleged work-related injury. Due to the nature of Dorman's injury, he consulted multiple physicians, first in Idaho, then in Wyoming. With each consultation, the doctors indicated that the injury was outside of their scope of expertise, and referred Doman to another specialist. During the period that Dorman was changing physicians, the Division and Dorman negotiated a stipulation concerning his TTD benefits and other benefits. This followed OAH and district court decisions that largely reversed the Division's earlier determinations concerning TTD benefits and Dorman's need for continued medical treatment. The Stipulated Order also provided that medical benefits would be paid as directed by the district court's order. After the Division paid the stipulated TTD benefits, Dorman submitted a letter to the Division requesting extended benefits The Division thereafter issued a final determination denying them, and further denied several applications for travel expense reimbursement for Dorman's trips to Idaho and Cheyenne. The matters were referred to the OAH where a combined hearing was held on the denial of TTD benefits, denial of travel reimbursement, and denial of diagnostic testing related to Dorman's injury. The OAH upheld the denial of TTD benefits on the ground that Dorman had failed to make the required showing that the Idaho and Cheyenne doctors were the closest available medical providers. Dorman appealed the portion of the OAH order denying extended TTD benefits and travel reimbursement to the district court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH denial of the travel reimbursement: Dorman could not prove that reimbursement of travel expenses was not supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant Gary Mitcheson after he fell at work and injured his tailbone in July of 2007. Approximately two years later, the Division issued a final determination denying payment for medical care that Appellant claimed was related to his workplace injury. Appellant requested a contested case hearing, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's determination. Appellant appealed to the district court, which upheld the OAH's order. On appeal, Appellant challenged the OAH order contending: (1) the order was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH's denial of payment for treating Appellant's tailbone was arbitrary; and (3) the OAH order denying payment for medical care contrary to the "Rule Out" rule was contrary to law. Finding the issues Appellant raised on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH's decision.

Applicants Wagonhound Land and Livestock Company, LLC, VenJohn Oil, Inc., and Steven M. VenJohn filed a petition with the Wyoming State Board of Control seeking to change the place of use, point of diversion and means of conveyance for water appropriations attached to 174.8 acres. VenJohn owned the appropriations from the North Platte River and requested that the point of diversion and place of use of the rights be moved upstream to Wagonhound’s land. Vic and Jane Garber and several others who were intervening water right holders, objected to the petition, and the Board held a contested case hearing. The Board granted the Applicants’ petition but reduced the transferred rights to 152.5 acres. The Objectors unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for review of the Board decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, they challenged: the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Board's record; and whether the final decision was in violation of Wyo. Stats. 41-3-104 and 41-3-114. Although the Objectors claimed the defects in the original petition required reversal of the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court found that they did not sufficiently explain why the amendment process was inappropriate or how it violated statute or board rules. The Objectors also did not demonstrate how the other landowners were injured by the petition or the process employed by the Board. Without further explanation, the Court could not accept their argument, and affirmed the Board's decision.

Appellant in this case attempted to challenge an agency decision denying her claim for unemployment benefits. Appellant filed a timely petition for review of agency action pursuant to Wyo. R. App. P. 12 (Rule 12). The district court dismissed the petition due to procedural deficiencies. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration based on Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 (Rule 60). The district court denied the motion. Appellant then appealed the order denying her motion for reconsideration. At issue on appeal was whether, when a district court enters a final judgment in a Rule 12 agency appeal, a party can file a Rule 60 motion to set aside the court's judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that a Rule 60 motion is not an avenue available to mount a challenge to a district court's final decision in an agency appeal.