Case Title: Harris v. Schuetz

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-138

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Harris v. Schuetz1997 WY 138948 P.2d 907Case Number: 97-138Decided: 12/11/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

MAXINE H. HARRIS,  

Appellant (Plaintiff), 

 

v. 

 

WENDY L. SCHUETZ, 

in capacity of Principal Claims Analyst, for Workers' 
Safety and 

Compensation Division, Department of Employment, 
State of Wyoming,  

Appellee (Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County,  

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 

 

Representing Appellant: 

Donald L. 
Painter.

 Representing Appellee: 

William U. 
Hill, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. 
Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant 
Attorney General.

 

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

GOLDEN, Justice. 

[¶1]      Attorney Donald 
Painter appeals a district court order denying attorney fees in a mandamus 
action against the Division of Workers' Compensation. We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Painter's sole 
issue presented is:

1. Whether the District Court properly denied the 
payment of attorney's fees in this case.

 

[¶3]      The Division 
presents these two issues:

 

A. The district court denied attorney fees for a 
mandamus action brought to review agency inaction. Was the denial of fees an 
abuse of discretion?

 

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

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      On December 11, 
1996, Maxine Harris' claim for worker's compensation was denied by the Division. 
She requested a hearing on December 19, 1996. On March 12, 1997, Harris filed a 
Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Wendy L. Schuetz, the principal claims 
analyst for the Division. On March 20, 1997, an order to appear and show cause 
was issued to Schuetz and served on her at her office. On April 8, 1997, Harris 
filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice in the action, and her attorney, 
Painter, filed a motion for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of 
$225.00. The district court issued a decision letter which 
stated:

 

[Both judges of the 7th Judicial District] reviewed 
your Motion for Award of Attorney's Fee in the referenced case. Based upon that 
review, I would decline to grant your request for an award of attorney's fees. 
It appears that the case involved a petition for writ of mandamus brought on 
behalf of your client. The matter was not an appeal of a worker's compensation 
matter. There was no appointment of you as counsel in the action. No citation 
was made to statute or other legal authority to require the award of attorney's 
fees in connection with this action. Therefore, I have entered the enclosed 
Order Denying Motion for Award of Attorney's Fee.

 

[¶5]      Painter filed a 
notice of appeal and included in the record on appeal an affidavit of facts to 
the record without approval by the district court. He also appended to his brief 
letters sent to the Division on behalf of Harris which are not part of the 
record.

 

DISCUSSION

[¶6]      The mandamus 
action was filed in this case to compel agency action. Mandamus is not proper if 
an adequate remedy at law exists and cannot substitute for an appeal. Allendale Water & Sewer Dist. v. 
State, 919 P.2d 146, 149 (Wyo. 1996). The Wyoming Administrative Procedures 
Act, WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(a) (1997), and WYO. R.APP. P. 12.01 expressly 
authorize judicial review of agency inaction. Neither the Division nor Painter 
have informed the court whether the Division's rules provide instruction as to 
how a claimant is to proceed if the Division does not respond to a claimant's 
request for a hearing; however, the Division contends that the proper remedy for 
this kind of agency inaction is a petition for review. Given the Division's 
position, it is equitable to assume that if no express provision is made then, 
after a reasonable period of time, inaction is deemed a denial of that request, 
and the proper course is to file a petition for review of the Division's failure 
to set a hearing. Painter points out that statute requires the Division to set a 
hearing immediately upon request. This statutory language certainly bears upon a 
construction of what a reasonable time period should be. In this case, Painter 
filed his petition for mandamus almost ninety days after Harris requested a 
hearing, and no response from the Division was received. Harris had waited a 
reasonable amount of time; however, we hold the appropriate remedy was to file a 
petition for review of agency inaction. Because there was an adequate remedy at 
law, an action for mandamus was improper.

 

[¶7]      Painter does not 
provide argument or authority as to why he should be entitled to attorney's fees 
when he did not comply with the workers' compensation statutes and, as outlined 
in the Division's brief, his appeal violated numerous rules of appellate 
procedure. Under these circumstances, we affirm the district court's order 
denying attorney fees.