Case Title: In re WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM (DeLauter)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM (DeLauter)2000 WY 1994 P.2d 934Case Number: 98-281Decided: 01/07/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
In the Matter of the WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: Wanda 
DeLAUTER, Appellant (Petitioner),v.STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING 
WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).

Appeal from the District Court of 
Natrona County, W. Thomas Sullins, J.          
 
David A. Drell of Vlastos, Brooks, Henley & Drell, P.C., Casper, Wyoming, 
representing appellant.Gay Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. 
Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General; Bernard P. Haggerty, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. 
Haggerty, representing appellee.

Before THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, HILL, JJ., and 
KAIL, D.J., Retired.          

Golden, Justice. 
[¶1] Wanda DeLauter (DeLauter) appeals from a hearing examiner's order 
awarding her permanent total disability benefits in the amount of $167.94 per 
month. Relying on the statute in effect when DeLauter was injured and a set of 
facts to which the parties stipulated, the hearing examiner determined DeLauter 
was entitled to two-thirds of the statewide average monthly wage, minus the 
amounts she received in Social Security retirement and survivor's benefits. 
Holding that the hearing examiner invoked the incorrect statute, we remand for 
application of the correct statute.
ISSUES
[¶2] DeLauter presents this statement of the issues:
1. Whether the Office of Administrative Hearings' Order Awarding Extended 
Benefits to the Employee - Claimant in the amount of $167.94 per month was 
arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in 
accordance with law and, furthermore, not supported by substantial 
evidence.
[¶3] The Division presents this statement of the issues:
The Hearing Examiner offset the Employee's Social Security retirement and 
death benefits against her workers' compensation extended permanent total 
disability award.
[¶4] A. Was the Hearing Examiner's decision supported by substantial 
evidence, within her discretion, and in accordance with law?
FACTS
[¶5] In March of 1984, DeLauter injured her right hand at work. Although she 
attempted to return to work after the accident, her injuries required several 
surgeries and prevented DeLauter from working since June of 1986. The Division 
awarded DeLauter temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits. 
After surgery in February of 1996, DeLauter again received temporary total 
disability benefits for several months. In October of that year, however, the 
Division issued a Final Determination denying further temporary total disability 
benefits, saying:
TEMPORARY TOTAL CANNOT BE PAID AFTER 10-31-96 AS IT HAS COME TO THE DIVISIONS 
[sic] ATTENTION THAT YOU ARE RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. YOU CANNOT BE 
TEMPORARILY DISABLED ON OUR SYSTEM AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED ON THEIR SYSTEM AT 
THE SAME TIME.
[¶6] DeLauter objected to the determination, and the case was referred to the 
Office of Administrative Hearings.
[¶7] Shortly before the hearing, DeLauter and the Division stipulated that 
she was permanently totally disabled and entitled to benefits. They further 
agreed that the only issue to be decided was the amount of benefits, in view of 
DeLauter's Social Security benefits. At the hearing DeLauter testified that she 
received Social Security payments of $293 per month as a retirement benefit, and 
$445 per month as a result of her husband's death. She also introduced evidence 
that her minimum monthly expenses were $1,630.
[¶8] The hearing examiner issued an Order Awarding Extended Benefits, in 
which she awarded DeLauter $167.94 per month. That amount was determined in 
accordance with Wyo. Stat. § 27-12-405(d) (1983), the statute in effect at the 
time of DeLauter's accident, which provided in relevant part:
(d) * * * the district court may award additional compensation to the injured 
employee for any continuing impairment of his earning power resulting from the 
original injury, subject to the following: * * *
(ii) The employee shall establish that his earning power has been and 
continues to be impaired by reason of the injury for which compensation was 
awarded;
(iii) In determining whether there has been an impairment in the employee's 
earning power, the district court shall consider the amount which the employee 
is currently capable of earning in comparison with his earnings at the time of 
his injury;
(iv) The maximum monthly amount of additional compensation shall not exceed 
two-thirds of the state's average monthly wage, less:
(A) The employee's current monthly earning power, less taxes payable by the 
employee to the state or federal government on the earnings[.]
[¶9] The hearing examiner concluded that DeLauter's $738 in monthly Social 
Security benefits constituted earning power, and subtracted that amount from the 
state's average monthly wage to arrive at a monthly benefit amount. DeLauter 
appealed the award to the district court, which certified the case to this Court 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
[¶10] Our standard of review for workers' compensation cases is quite 
clear:
The interpretation and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Act is a question of law over which our review authority 
is plenary. Tenorio v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 931 P.2d 234, 237 (Wyo. 1997); Claim of Nielsen, 806 P.2d 297, 299 (Wyo. 
1991). Conclusions of law made by an administrative agency are affirmed only if 
they are in accord with the law. Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 
1996); Aanenson v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 
1992). 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. 
Matter of Gneiting, 897 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Wyo. 
1995); City of Casper v. Haines, 886 P.2d 585, 587 (Wyo. 
1994).
[¶11] Wright v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 
952 P.2d 209, 211 (Wyo. 
1998). Because no facts are in dispute, our review is limited to determining 
whether the hearing examiner correctly applied the appropriate law when 
calculating the amount of DeLauter's permanent total disability payments.
Applicable Statute
[¶12] The hearing examiner cited Duncan v. Laramie County Community College, 
768 P.2d 593 (Wyo. 1989), 
in determining that the workers' compensation statute in effect on the date of 
DeLauter's accident was applicable to this dispute. Duncan, however, does not 
support that position; the case is silent on that precise issue. The correct 
rule is that the statute in effect when DeLauter became permanently disabled 
controls. Rodgers v. State, ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 246, 249 (Wyo. 
1997).
[¶13] In Rodgers, we said that absent a physician's certification of 
permanent total disability we may accept the parties' stipulation that the 
claimant is disabled. Rodgers, 939 P.2d  at 249. We further said that although 
the stipulation in that case did not specify the date of total disability, we 
would accept the date of the stipulation as the date of total disability. Id. As 
we stated in the factual discussion here, the parties stipulated that DeLauter 
was permanently disabled, but did not include the date of her disability. 
Therefore, the workers' compensation provisions in effect on the date of the 
stipulation control.
[¶14] We reverse the Hearing Examiner's Order Awarding Extended Benefits, and 
remand for a determination under the appropriate statute.