Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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.

This was an appeal from a forfeiture order entered by the district court against a total of $116,584 and certain items of personal property. The cash and personal property were seized from several individuals because of their alleged use in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Appellants Joseph Libretti and Frank Hohlios claimed $7,209 of the cash seized and appealed the forfeiture order, contending that the district court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing without ruling on their motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and in denying them the opportunity to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or avail themselves of the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court acted in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure in ruling on the State's forfeiture complaint and did not deny the rights of Appellants to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or otherwise fully participate in the proceedings.

Catherine Morris submitted a worker's compensation claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, and the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied her claim. The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the Division's denial of benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in admitting a psychological report produced after the discovery cutoff; and (2) the Commission abused its discretion in limiting the scope of Morris' testimony to matters not discussed in the discovery deposition taken by the Division, but Morris did not object below to that limitation and thus waived her right to appeal that issue.

After being separately cited and arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI), Ricky Miller and Christopher Gonzalez (Petitioners) petitioned the district court for review of agency inaction by the Wyoming Department of Health (WDOH). Miller and Gonzalez requested that the district court require the WDOH to retroactively decertify the chemical test operators who had performed chemical tests of Petitioners' breath to determine the quantity of alcohol in their respective bodies. The district court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Petitioners lacked standing to bring the action and that the matter was not ripe for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners did not satisfy the three elements of standing as set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Petitioners' petition for review for lack of standing.

Kenneth Cook was terminated from his employment as a sheriff department deputy for violating department policies related to report writing and firearms security. Cook requested a contested case hearing before the sheriff, who upheld Cook's dismissal from the Department. The district court reversed, concluding that the record did not contain substantial evidence demonstrating cause existed to dismiss Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Sheriff's determination that cause existed to discharge Cook on the basis of his violation of department policies was not supported by substantial evidence.

Appellant Michael Beall received preauthorization from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division for an orchiectomy, a procedure to remove his left testicle, which he claimed was related to a workplace injury. Beall's employer, Sky Blue Enterprises, objected to the preauthorization and the matter was referred to the Medical Commission Hearing Panel for a contested case hearing. Beall elected to undergo the surgery prior to the scheduled hearing. The Commission denied Beall's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses on the basis that the surgery was not reasonable or necessary medical care resulting from his workplace injury. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the burden of proving that the orchiectomy was reasonable and necessary medical care as related to Beall's alleged workplace injury rested with Beall; and (2) substantial evidence supported the Commission's determination that Beall failed to meet this burden.

Jimmie McMasters was working as an HVAC journeyman when he fell from a beam to a concrete floor and suffered an injury. McMasters applied for permanent total disability benefits claiming a total disability. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied the application. The Division did not dispute that McMasters could not return to work but instead contended that McMasters' failure to obtain alternative employment was due to a preexisting psychological condition and a poor effort to find work. The Medical Commission agreed and upheld the denial of benefits. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) McMasters established a prima facie case under the odd lot doctrine when he showed he could not return to his former employment, and the combination of his psychological and physical conditions precluded alternative employment; (2) the burden thereafter shifted to the Division to show that light work of a special nature, which McMasters could perform, was available; and (3) the Division did not meet its burden.

Rebecca Fulmer suffered injuries on two separate dates while working as a nursing assistant at Shepherd of the Valley Care Center. Fulmer submitted worker's compensation claims for both injuries, and the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits for the two injuries. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, concluding that Fulmer was not entitled to benefits (1) for her first injury because it was the result of Fulmer's own culpable negligence, and (2) for her second injury because it was caused not by her work but by normal activities of day-to-day living. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court and held that Fulmer was entitled to benefits for both of her injuries where Shepherd did not meet its burden of proving (1) Fulmer's actions were willful and serious misconduct that constituted culpable negligence with her first injury, and (2) a normal activity of day-to-day living caused Fulmer's hip fracture. Remanded.

In 2008-2009, Scott Davenport sought worker's compensation benefits for medical care and surgery to fuse vertebrae in his lumbar spine. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits on the basis that Davenport's 2008-2009 back problems were not caused by work related injuries Davenport suffered in 1984 and 1985. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, ruling that the procedure was necessitated by a preexisting congenital defect in Davenport's lumbar spine and not his prior work related injuries. The district court affirmed the OAH decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH decision was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was, therefore, supported by substantial evidence in the record.

In 2008, the Teton County Commission approved a parcel boundary adjustment application regarding certain real property located in Teton County. Appellees, several individuals, sought judicial review of the Commission's decision. In 2008 and 2009, respectively, Appellants, Mark Menolascino and William Hirshberg, purchased the property. Neither sought to intervene in the judicial review proceedings. In 2011, the reviewing district court reversed the Commission's decision. The parties to the original administrative proceedings declined to appeal the ruling. Appellants, however, filed a notice of appeal. They contemporaneously filed a motion to intervene in the district court proceedings for the sole purpose of pursuing the appeal therefrom. The district court denied their motion to intervene, a decision which Appellants also appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellants' request to interview in the judicial review proceedings; and (2) dismissed Appellants' appeal of the final order of the district court for lack of standing because of Appellants' status as nonparties.