Case Title: Olheiser v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Olheiser v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.1994 WY 136886 P.2d 269Case Number: 94-106Decided: 12/07/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
In the Matter of the 
Workers' Compensation Claim of Alice I. OLHEISER, Surviving Spouse of Louis S. 
Olheiser, Deceased,

Appellant 
(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

STATE of Wyoming, ex 
rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION,

Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

Appeal from The District 
Court of Fremont County, Elizabeth A. Kail, J.

 

Mark J. White 
and Jill E. Kucera of White & White, P.C., Riverton, for 
appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., Gerald W. Laska, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

 

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

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      Alice I. 
Olheiser, surviving spouse of Louis S. Olheiser, seeks review of a district 
court order affirming a hearing officer's denial of worker's compensation death 
benefits. Earlier, this court answered certified questions arising from this 
case regarding the interpretation of WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b) (1991).1 Olheiser v. State ex rel. 
Worker's Comp., 866 P.2d 768, 770 (Wyo. 1994) (Olheiser I). Following our 
remand, the district court affirmed the hearing officer's order denying 
appellant's benefits claim because she failed to comply with the statute of 
limitations as provided in WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b). She now 
appeals.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Appellant 
presents a single issue for our review:

Whether appellant's claim 
for benefits was timely filed with respect to the applicable statute of 
limitation, WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b) (1991).

[¶4]      Appellee states 
the issue as:

Is there substantial 
evidence to support the conclusion that a reasonable person in appellant's 
position should have known, no later than when a denial of compensation benefits 
was received, that decedent's injuries may have been related to his 
employment.

[¶5]      As related in 
Olheiser I, appellant's husband, Louis Olheiser, had worked for 
Continental Uranium as an underground uranium miner from 1958 to 1968. Mr. 
Olheiser was diagnosed with lung cancer on September 25, 1987, and without Mrs. 
Olheiser's knowledge filed a report of injury with the Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Division (Division) on November 28, 1987. Mr. Olheiser died on 
January 26, 1988. Appellant received a written objection from the Division, 
denying her husband's claims on February 11, 1988, but did not 
answer.

[¶6]      A few months 
later appellant read a newspaper article about ionizing radiation and realized 
that her husband's death might be due to his employment as a uranium miner. She 
consulted with an attorney and filed a claim for benefits on September 13, 1990. 
A hearing officer determined that appellant's claim was barred by the statute of 
limitations, WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b), and granted summary judgment in favor of 
the Division. Appellant filed a petition for review, and the district court 
certified two questions regarding the statute, which this court answered in 
Olheiser I.

[¶7]      In Olheiser 
I, we concluded the statute required ionizing radiation injury claims to be 
brought "within a time period certain." Olheiser I, 866 P.2d  at 773. We 
defined the statute's term "discovery" as meaning "[a]n injury is discovered 
when a claimant has knowledge or when a reasonable person, under the 
circumstances, should have knowledge that the decedent's injuries were related 
to his or her employment. This necessarily implies a duty of due diligence on 
the part of the claimant in pursuing a claim." Olheiser I, 866 P.2d  at 
773.

[¶8]      Following remand, 
the district court determined that substantial evidence supported the hearing 
examiner's findings and the hearing examiner had properly applied WYO. STAT. § 
27-14-503(b) to decide appellant's claim was time barred. The grant of summary 
judgment in favor of the division was affirmed.

[¶9]      Appellant asserts 
the district court erred in upholding the hearing officer's determination that 
she had not submitted her claim within one year after discovery as required by 
the statute. Our judicial review is as a reviewing court of the first instance 
and we accord no deference to the district court's decision. Matter of 
Nyquist, 870 P.2d 360, 362 (Wyo. 1994). As a reviewing court, our standard 
of review is set out by statute:

[T]he 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:

* * * * * 
*

(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;

* * * * * 
*

(E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence * * *.

WYO. STAT. § 
16-3-114(c) (1990).

[¶10]   A reviewing court examines the 
entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the 
findings of a hearing officer. Aanenson v. State ex rel. Worker's Comp. 
Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 1992) (citing Hohnholt v. Basin Elec. Power 
Co-Op, 784 P.2d 233, 234 (Wyo. 1989)). If the decision of the hearing 
officer is supported by substantial evidence, this court defers to that 
judgment, will not substitute its own judgment and will uphold the findings on 
appeal. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable 
mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. It is more than a 
scintilla of evidence. Id. If in accordance with the law, an agency's 
conclusion of law is affirmed, and if not in accordance with the law, it is 
corrected. Nyquist, 870 P.2d  at 362.

[¶11]   The relevant portion of the statute 
states:

(b) The right of 
compensation for an injury which occurs over a substantial period of time is 
barred unless a claim for benefits is filed within one (1) year after a 
diagnosis of injury is first communicated to the employee, or within three (3) 
years from the date of last injurious exposure to the condition causing the 
injury, whichever occurs last, excluding injury caused by ionizing radiation to 
which the three (3) year limitation does not apply. If death results from 
ionizing radiation within either of these periods, a claim shall be filed within 
one (1) year after the date of discovery.

WYO. STAT. § 
27-14-503(b) (1991 & Supp. 1994).2

[¶12]   The hearing officer determined the 
date of discovery was September 25, 1987, when Mr. Olheiser's cancer was 
diagnosed. In Olheiser I, this court stated:

By its terms the clause 
"[i]f death results" applies to this case because it is an action for death 
benefits. Thus, the key to this claim was "discovery" not "diagnosis," which 
refers only to the employee. Of course, whether a diagnosis was communicated to 
. . . others may be a factor in determining if the claimant knew or a reasonable 
person would have known of the relationship between the injury and the 
employment.

Olheiser, 866 P.2d  at 
773.

[¶13]   Appellant argues the date of 
discovery was not until 1990 when she consulted with her attorney and learned 
that her husband had suffered a compensable injury. She contends that an 
ionizing radiation injury is compensable only when the claimant knows that the 
injury was related to the employment. Appellant's argument would require this 
court to hold that only actual knowledge will begin the statute of limitations 
period. However, that holding would not align with our opinion in Olheiser I 
where we required claimants to diligently pursue a claim if, under the 
circumstances, a reasonable person would have knowledge that the decedent's 
injuries were related to his or her employment. Olheiser, 866 P.2d  at 
773.

[¶14]   Appellant had sufficient knowledge 
to cause her to diligently pursue a claim when she learned of her husband's 
diagnosis of lung cancer. A reasonable person would have investigated and 
discovered that her husband's injuries were related to his 
employment.

[¶15]   The hearing examiner's findings 
regarding the date that the statute of limitations began to run are supported by 
substantial evidence, and the hearing examiner correctly applied the rule of law 
regarding "discovery" as interpreted by this court in Olheiser I to those 
facts. The hearing examiner correctly decided that appellant's claim was time 
barred, and we affirm the denial of benefits.

Footnotes

1 WYO. STAT. 
§ 27-14-503 (1991), formerly WYO. STAT. § 27-12-503 (1977), was renumbered in 
1986 and, substantively, was not changed. In 1994, WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503 was 
changed substantively.

2 In 1994, 
the language of WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b) (last sentence) was changed and now 
requires a claim to be filed within one year after the date of death. 
(Emphasis added). WYO. STAT. § 27-14-503(b) (Supp. 
1994).