Case Title: Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation Internal Hearing Unit, Dept. of Employment, State of Wyo.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-197

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation Internal Hearing Unit, Dept. of Employment, State of Wyo.1998 WY 85962 P.2d 874Case Number: 97-197Decided: 07/09/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

Frank 
SHENEMAN, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

DIVISION OF WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION INTERNAL 
HEARING UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, STATE

OF WYOMING, Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Fremont County, Nancy 
Guthrie, J.

 

Donald L. Painter of Donald 
L. Painter, P.C., Casper, for 
Appellant(Petitioner).

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, 
for Appellee(Respondent).

 

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR*, JJ.

 * Chief Justice at the time of expedited 
conference.

 

THOMAS, Justice.

 [¶1] The only issue before the Court in this case is 
whether the district court erred in denying attorney fees requested for the 
representation of Frank Sheneman (Sheneman) in a judicial review proceeding. 
Sheneman petitioned the court to review an order of the Internal Hearing Unit of 
the Workers' Compensation and Safety Division, Department of Employment (IHU) 
that denied the relief sought by Sheneman. Sheneman also appealed from the Order 
of the district court that affirmed the decision of the IHU, but that Order was 
the subject of Sheneman's appeal in Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Internal Hearing Unit, 956 P.2d 344 (Wyo. 1998) (Sheneman I), and it will not be revisited here. The 
district court entered an Order Denying Attorney Fees, ruling that the award of 
attorney fees is authorized by statute only when review is sought of a contested 
case hearing involving benefits, and the petition for review before the court 
did not relate to a contested case hearing involving benefits. We affirm the 
Order Denying Attorney Fees.

 

[¶2] In the Appellant's 
Brief, the issue that is raised is:

 

1. 
Whether determination of the merits on Appellant's late filing should have been 
referred to the Internal Hearing Unit (IHU) or the Office of Administrative 
Hearings (OAH).

 

[¶3] In the Brief of 
Appellee, the issues that are raised are:

 

A. 
The Employee's Motion cited no authority for fees. The Act in effect at the time 
of the injury limited fees to the amount of benefits at issue in the district 
court. No benefits were at issue in the district court, only the timeliness of 
the Employee's objection. Was the denial of fees an abuse of 
discretion?

 

B. 
The Employee has disregarded the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. Should 
the Court summarily affirm?

 

[¶4] The procedural and 
factual background pertinent to this appeal is set forth in Sheneman I. While 
that case was pending in this Court, Sheneman filed a Motion for Award of 
Attorney's Fee in the district court, in which he sought to be awarded 
attorney's fees for his representation in the review of the order from the IHU. 
On behalf of the IHU, an Objection to Motion for Award of Attorney's Fee was 
filed, and Sheneman then filed a Traverse to Objection to Motion for Award of 
Attorney's Fee. The district court denied Sheneman's motion on the ground that 
his attorney's representation "did not involve a contested case hearing 
involving benefits * * *."  The 
district court also ruled that the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, WYO. STAT. 
§ 27-14-101 through -805 (1997), authorizes attorney's fees only upon review of 
a contested case hearing involving benefits, and that Sheneman had failed to 
point to any statutory authority for awarding attorney's 
fees.

 

[¶5] We do not address the 
issue articulated by Sheneman in his brief. That claim of error is controlled by 
Sheneman I. We also have ruled in another case that the IHU has authority to 
determine whether a request for a contested case hearing was timely filed. Poll 
v. State ex rel. Worker's Comp., 963 P.2d 977 (Wyo. 1998). That issue has been 
definitively resolved contrary to Sheneman's position.

 

[¶6] Sheneman contends that 
he should have been awarded attorney's fees for representation on his petition 
to review the order of the IHU. The issue, as noted by the district court, is 
whether the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act furnishes any authority for an 
award of attorney's fees in an instance such as this. That issue is a question 
of law, and our review of the district court's determination is plenary. Tenorio 
v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 931 P.2d 234, 237 (Wyo. 1997); 
Claim of Nielsen, 806 P.2d 297, 299 (Wyo. 1991). No deference is afforded to the 
decision of a district court on issues of law. V-1 Oil Co. v. State, 934 P.2d 740, 742 (Wyo. 1997); Griess v. 
Office of the Atty. Gen., Div. of Criminal Investigation, 932 P.2d 734, 736 
(Wyo. 1997).

 

[¶7] The rule in Wyoming is 
that attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of specific statutory 
authority, unless there is a contract providing for them. Snodgrass v. Rissler 
& McMurry Co., 903 P.2d 1015, 1017 (Wyo. 1995); UNC Teton Exploration 
Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton, 774 P.2d 584, 594 (Wyo. 1989). At the time Sheneman 
was injured, the sole authority for attorney's fees to be awarded under the 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act was set forth in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-615 (Wyo. 
1995) (emphasis added), which 
provided:

 

The district court may appoint an attorney to 
represent the employee during proceedings in the district court and appeal to 
the supreme court. The district court may allow the attorney a reasonable fee 
for his services at the conclusion of the proceedings in district court and the 
supreme court may allow for reasonable fees for services at the conclusion of 
the proceedings in the supreme court. In any appeal where the issue is the 
compensability of an injury, a prevailing employer's attorney fees shall also be 
paid according to the order of the district court or supreme court from the 
worker's compensation account, not to affect the employer's experience rating. 
An award of attorney's fees shall be for a reasonable number of hours and 
shall not exceed the benefits at issue in the appeal. In all other cases, if 
the employer or division prevails in the district court or supreme court, as the 
case may be, the fees allowed an employee's attorney shall not affect the 
employer's experience rating.

 

[¶8] We analyze this statute 
in accordance with our traditional rules relating to statutory construction and 
interpretation. The controlling consideration is legislative intent, as 
manifested in the plain language of the statute. Casper Oil Co. v. Evenson, 888 P.2d 221, 225 (Wyo. 1995); Parker Land and Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game and Fish 
Com'n., 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo. 1993). A statute is unambiguous if its wording 
is such that reasonable persons are able to agree as to its meaning with 
predictability and consistency. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Bd. of 
Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 220 (Wyo. 1991), followed by, State Dept. of Revenue 
and Taxation v. Pacificorp., 872 P.2d 1163, 1166 (Wyo. 1994). The plain language 
of this statute limits an award of attorney's fees to the benefits at issue in the 
appeal.

 

[¶9] No benefits were at 
issue in the review of the final order by the IHU that Sheneman sought in the 
district court. The only issue was whether Sheneman had made a timely filing of 
his objection to the Final Determination of the Division of Worker's Safety and 
Compensation, Department of Employment and a request for a hearing. The district 
court correctly determined that no attorney's fees were authorized pursuant to 
statute because no benefits were at issue in the review sought by Sheneman. The 
plain and unambiguous language of WYO. STAT. § 27-14-615 forecloses Sheneman's 
claim for attorney's fees.

 

[¶10] The Order Denying 
Attorney Fees entered in the district court is affirmed.