Case Title: LUDWIG v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 03-113

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
LUDWIG v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2004 WY 3486 P.3d 875Case Number: 03-113Decided: 03/30/2004
October 
Term, A.D. 2003

 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF:

 

APRIL 
D. LUDWIG,

 

Appellant(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee(Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sweetwater County

The 
Honorable Jere Ryckman, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Lynn 
Boak, Cheyenne, WY.  Argument by Ms. 
Boak.

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Assistant Attorney General; and 
William M. MacPherson, Special Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. 
MacPherson.

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

 

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a determination of the State of Wyoming, Office of Administrative Hearings 
(OAH), denying the permanent partial disability claim of appellant April D. 
Ludwig.  We 
affirm.  

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Ludwig sets forth 
the following issues:

 

1.  Where the evidence presented at hearing was limited by 
agreement of the parties to a single issue, can the [OAH] base [its] decision to 
deny permanent partial disability benefits on a different issue?
 

2.  If 
the issue is the adequacy of the claimant's job search, as framed by the 
pleadings, are the [State's] rules concerning compliance with [Wyo. Stat. § 
27-14-405(h)] an attempt to legislate or amend or, alternatively, construe the 
statute?

 

3.  If 
the [OAH] improperly applied W.S. 27-14-405(h) to deny permanent partial 
disability benefits to the claimant, is there otherwise substantial evidence in 
the record to conclude the claimant was not entitled to these 
benefits?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      Ludwig injured 
her back while at work in October of 1999 and received an impairment rating in 
October of 2000.  She later was 
given a permanent partial impairment rating in October of 2001.  Ludwig applied for six jobs in 2000, two 
jobs in 2001, and six jobs in 2002.  
Ludwig conducted her search for the six jobs in 2002 during the eight 
days just prior to making application for permanent partial disability.  Ludwig's application was denied by 
appellee State of Wyoming, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division (State) on March 14, 2002, on the basis that she was not actively 
seeking work. 

 

[¶4]      Ludwig appealed 
this determination to the OAH.  
After hearing, the OAH upheld the State's determination.  On review, the district court upheld the 
decision of the OAH.  This appeal 
followed. 

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶5]      The parameters 
for judicial review of an agency action are found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114.1  Serda v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Div., 2002 WY 
38, ¶18, 42 P.3d 466, ¶18 (Wyo. 2002).  
Our standard of review when reviewing administrative agency action was 
clarified and refined in the case of Newman v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Div., 2002 WY 91, 49 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2002).  That case held that "the substantial 
evidence test is the appropriate standard of review . . . when factual 
findings are involved and both parties submit evidence."  Newman, at ¶22.  

 

[¶6]      In appeals where 
both parties submitted evidence at the hearing below and the dispute is over the 
soundness of the factual findings of the agency, Newman mandates the appellate review be 
limited to application of the substantial evidence test.  Id.  This is true regardless of which party 
appeals from the agency decision.  
The substantial evidence test provides:

 
In 
reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether 
there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings.  If the agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency and must uphold the findings on appeal.  Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's 
conclusions.  It is more than a 
scintilla of evidence.  

 

Newman, 
at ¶12 (quoting State 
ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div. v. Jensen, 
2001 WY 51, ¶10, 24 P.3d 1133, ¶10 (Wyo. 2001)).  This 
court is required to review the entire record in making its ultimate 
determination on appeal. Newman, at 
¶¶19 and 24-26. 

 

[¶7]      In State ex rel. Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Div. v. Garl, 
2001 WY 59, ¶9, 26 P.3d 1029, ¶9 (Wyo. 2001), we acknowledged 
that:

 

            
The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act are questions of law over which our review 
authority is plenary. Collicott [v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Div., 2001 WY 35], at ¶4[, 20 P.3d 1077, ¶4 (Wyo. 2001)].  Conclusions of law made by an 
administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law.  Id.  We do not afford any deference to the 
agency's determination, and we will correct any error made by the agency in 
either interpreting or applying the law.  
Id.

 

In 
accord see Vaughan 
v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 
2002 WY 131, ¶6, 53 P.3d 559, ¶6 (Wyo. 2002).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

[¶8]      In the primary 
issue on appeal, Ludwig claims that insufficient evidence exists to conclude 
that she was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits.  The State argues that the OAH correctly 
found that Ludwig had failed to meet her burden of proof that she had actively 
sought suitable work.

 

[¶9]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 27-14-405 (Lexis 1999), in applicable part, 
provides:

 

(h)  An 
injured employee awarded permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a 
permanent disability award subject to the following terms and 
conditions:

 

. . .

 

(iii)  The 
employee has actively sought suitable work, considering the employee's health, 
education, training and experience.

 

A 
claimant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of proving all the 
essential elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence in the 
contested case hearing.  
Hermosillo v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 
2002 WY 175, ¶6, 58 P.3d 924, ¶6 (Wyo. 2002); Johnson v. State ex rel. 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 2001 WY 48, ¶7, 23 P.3d 32, ¶7 (Wyo. 
2001).  

 

[¶10]   A vocational evaluation, dated 
February 19, 2002, stated that Ludwig was not currently looking for work.  Although Ludwig noted several things 
that she disagreed with in the vocational evaluation, she did not disagree with 
this statement.  Moreover, Ludwig 
personally completed the job search record which reveals that Ludwig applied for 
six jobs in 2000, two jobs in 2001, and six jobs in 2002, with Ludwig conducting 
her 2002 job search during the eight days prior to her making application for 
permanent partial disability benefits.  
Ludwig admitted that the job search record represented a full, complete, 
and accurate list of all jobs for which she had applied since she was injured in 
October of 1999. 

 

[¶11]   Further review of the circumstances 
surrounding the job search record identified that, while Ludwig had contacted 
six employers in October of 2000, she only submitted four actual employment 
applications.  Ludwig also contacted 
two employers in 2001 but submitted no actual employment applications.  Likewise, just days before submitting 
her application for permanent partial disability, Ludwig contacted six other 
employers, yet did not submit a single employment application.  In addition, Ludwig testified that to 
the best of her knowledge she had signed up with the local job service.  She did not contact them, however, on a 
regular basis.  

 

[¶12]   The evidence further established 
that Ludwig was released to return to light to medium type work.  Potential alternative occupation 
positions, which accurately took into account Ludwig's limitations, were 
identified.  The labor market survey 
listed several jobs within Ludwig's limitations, experience, and training that 
were available within the entire state, including Rock Springs where Ludwig 
lived. 

 

[¶13]   In Hermosillo, at ¶9, a 
similar case, this court upheld a denial of permanent partial disability 
benefits based upon the claimant's failure to actively seek employment.  Therein we stated: 

 

Under 
the statute [Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405], the hearing examiner was 
required to consider whether the evidence showed that Hermosillo was "actively" 
seeking employment.  A review of the 
record shows that Hermosillo testified that, since 1999, he had applied at ten 
different companies, but, in his opinion, had not been hired either because of 
his health or his limited ability to speak English.  Hermosillo did not testify about the 
specific dates of his applications or provide further details about his job 
search efforts. Before he applied for benefits, he registered with the 
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and, at the time of hearing, was about 
to begin a part-time position for a few hours per week.  In contrast, the Division presented 
testimony by the vocational evaluator that, in 2000 and 2001, work was available 
for which Hermosillo was qualified and would accommodate the lifting 
restrictions imposed by his physician.  
The evaluator testified that work at a comparable or higher wage was 
available for Hermosillo despite a language barrier and lifting 
restrictions.  This evidence of 
sporadic efforts is substantial evidence supporting the hearing examiner's 
conclusion that Hermosillo did not present evidence that he had engaged in any 
kind of a sustained effort to apply or train for work when he applied for 
benefits.  Although the evidence 
somewhat conflicts, a review of the entire record shows that the hearing 
examiner's conclusion that Hermosillo had not actively looked for work as 
required by the statute was reasonable and not arbitrary and 
capricious.

 

[¶14]   Upon review of the record, we hold, 
as in Hermosillo, the conclusion reached by the OAH that Ludwig failed to 
prove she had actively sought employment is supported by substantial 
evidence.  This determination was 
sufficiently based upon exhibits and testimony presented by both parties, 
including the testimony of Ludwig herself.

 

 

[¶15]   Ludwig also asserts that even 
insofar as the OAH ruled that she had not sought work as required by 
§ 27-14-405(h), the OAH improperly used the State's rules in reaching that 
determination.  The State counters 
that Ludwig failed to bring that issue before the OAH; hence, the issue is not 
properly before this court and should not be considered.  Alternatively, the State contends that 
the OAH did not rely on the State's rules concerning "actively seeking 
employment" in making its decision. 

 

[¶16]   This court has consistently held 
that it "will not consider issues which are raised for the first time on appeal 
unless they are jurisdictional issues or issues of such a fundamental nature 
that they must be considered."  
Joyner v. State, 2002 WY 174, ¶13, 58 P.3d 331, ¶13 (Wyo. 2002); 
Robinson v. Pacificorp, 10 P.3d 1133, 1136 (Wyo. 2000); WW 
Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 956 P.2d 353, 356 (Wyo. 1998).  Nevertheless, even summary review of 
this issue discloses the OAH's ruling is supported through application of the 
language within § 27-14-405(h).  

 

[¶17]   In Hermosillo, the State 
argued that ch. 1, § 4 of its rules established that Hermosillo's efforts to 
seek employment were insufficient.  
This court noted that because Hermosillo did not challenge the 
applicability of the rule, this court would assume that it applied.  We further found "it unnecessary to 
determine the rule's intent.  Under 
the statute, the hearing examiner was required to consider whether the evidence 
showed that Hermosillo was actively' seeking employment."  Hermosillo, at 
¶9.

 

 

[¶18]   Ludwig lastly contends that the OAH 
improperly concluded that her real problem in seeking work was her degenerative 
back disease which was unrelated to her work injury when denying her application 
for permanent partial disability benefits.  
Ludwig claims this was error because the sole issue was whether or not 
she had sufficiently sought work as required under § 27-14-405(h).  Therefore, Ludwig argues that she was 
not afforded due process because she was not given proper notice of the OAH's 
intent to consider other issues. 

 

[¶19]   Although in its decision the OAH 
also concluded that the evidence supported the finding that Ludwig was unable to 
work because of her degenerative back condition, rather than a specific 
work-related injury, we are satisfied that the determinative issue before the 
OAH was whether Ludwig actively sought suitable employment as required by 
§ 27-14-405(h).  Ludwig was 
given adequate notice of this determinative issue and fully litigated this 
issue.  The OAH's decision on this 
issue is conclusive.   

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶20]   Upon our careful review of the 
record on appeal, we hold that the determination of the OAH denying Ludwig's 
application for permanent partial disability is affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

1Wyo. 
Stat. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2003):

 

(c)   To 
the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court 
shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and 
statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of 
an agency action.  In making the 
following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts 
of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial 
error.  The reviewing court 
shall:

 

(i)  Compel 
agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; 
and

 

(ii)  Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

 

(A)  Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

 

(B)  Contrary 
to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

 

(C)  In 
excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

 

(D)  Without 
observance of procedure required by law; or

 

(E)  Unsupported 
by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.