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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 03-222

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
JACOBS v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2004 WY 136100 P.3d 848Case Number: 03-222Decided: 11/10/2004
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF:

 

KIRK 
JACOBS,

 

Appellant(Employee-Claimant),

 

v.

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee(Objector).

 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

 

            
Bill G. Hibbler, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

Representing 
Appellee:

 

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristi M. 
Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.

 

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

 

 

            
VOIGT, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Kirk Jacobs 
(Jacobs) sustained a work-related toe injury in 1982.  In 2001, Jacobs filed worker's 
compensation claims for a lung condition and a knee injury, both of which he 
claimed were related to the 1982 toe injury.  The Wyoming Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Division (the Division) denied benefits for the lung and knee 
claims.  Jacobs objected to the 
Division's determination and the matter was referred to the Wyoming Medical 
Commission (the Commission). Following a contested hearing, the Commission 
affirmed the Division's denial of benefits.  On appeal, Jacobs does not object to the 
denial of benefits for his knee and lung claims, but rather he takes exception 
with the Commission's finding regarding the causal connection between the 1982 
toe injury and subsequent abdominal pain, an ailment for which he has been 
receiving worker's compensation payments for over twenty years.  We affirm the Commission's determination 
of the lung and knee claims and will not address the propriety of the 
Commission's finding about Jacobs' chronic abdominal pain, as that issue is not 
properly before us.

ISSUE

 

[¶2]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(a) (LexisNexis 2003) requires that a party must be "aggrieved or 
adversely affected in fact" to seek judicial review of an agency action.  Likewise, the doctrine of ripeness 
prevents courts from "entangling themselves'" in an administrative proceeding 
until a decision has been "formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by 
the challenging parties.'"  
Industrial Siting Council of State of Wyo. v. Chicago & North 
Western Transp. Co., 660 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1983) (quoting Abbott 
Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681 
(1967)).  In light of these 
principles, the issue we must consider is whether this Court should review the 
Commission's finding regarding Jacobs' chronic abdominal pain, when he has not 
been denied benefits for his chronic abdominal pain.

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      In 1982, Jacobs 
sustained a toe injury for which he was paid worker's compensation 
benefits.  The injury became 
infected and Jacobs was prescribed an antibiotic, Keflex, to treat the 
infection.  After taking the Keflex, 
Jacobs experienced severe and chronic abdominal pain, which pain has been 
treated with large amounts of narcotic pain medication for approximately the 
past twenty years.

 

[¶4]      In 2001, Jacobs 
sought worker's compensation benefits for lung problems and an orthopedic knee 
problem.  Jacobs claimed that both 
ailments were caused by the pain medication he was taking for his chronic 
abdominal pain.  The Division denied 
benefits for both the knee and lung claims.  Jacobs objected to the Division's final 
determination and the matter was referred to the Commission for a hearing.  The Commission sustained the Division's 
denial of benefits, finding that Jacobs failed to prove that the pain medication 
caused his lung or knee problems.  
As part of its findings, the Commission also stated that Jacobs failed to 
establish a causal link between the work-related toe injury and his chronic 
abdominal pain.

 

[¶5]      Jacobs filed a 
petition for review with the district court.  In that petition, Jacobs asserted that 
he was denied due process because he was not provided sufficient notice that the 
Commission would consider the causal link between his chronic abdominal pain and 
the toe injury at the hearing regarding his lung and knee claims.  The district court affirmed the 
Commission's decision and this timely appeal followed.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶6]      Although Jacobs 
appeals from the Commission's denial of benefits for his lung and knee injury 
claims, his primary concern on appeal is with the Commission's finding as to his 
chronic abdominal pain.  Jacobs' 
appellate brief states "the only denial of medical benefits that is at issue in 
this appeal is that relating to Mr. Jacobs' injury of his continuing abdominal 
pain."  He concludes his appellate 
brief by requesting "the Medical Commission's Decision entered in this matter 
denying benefits for his chronic abdominal pain, be voided . . .."  The problem with this request, and with 
Jacobs' appeal as a whole, is that nothing indicates that Jacobs has been 
denied, or will be denied, benefits for his chronic abdominal pain.  The Commission's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law stated:

 

Following 
a careful review of all the evidence presented in the case, the Medical 
Commission finds that Kirk Jacobs has not met his burden of proving that his 
treatment for breathing and pulmonary problems are related to his September 24, 
1982, work injury.  He has also not 
met his burden of proof that arthritis in his knees is related to his work 
injury.  Therefore he is not 
entitled to medical payment for the benefits in question.

 

While 
the Commission affirmed the denial of benefits for Jacobs' lung and knee claims, 
the findings of fact and conclusions of law contain no language denying Jacobs 
future benefits for his chronic abdominal pain nor does the record on appeal 
indicate that Jacobs has been, or will be, denied benefits related to his 
chronic abdominal pain.

 

            
"Aggrieved or Adversely Affected in 
Fact"

 

[¶7]      We have held that 
"[j]udicial review of an agency action is authorized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(a)[1] only for those persons aggrieved 
or adversely affected in fact' by the challenged action."  Jolley v. State Loan and Inv. 
Bd., 2002 WY 7, ¶ 7, 38 P.3d 1073, 1076 (Wyo. 
2002).

 

"An 
aggrieved or adversely affected person is one who has a legally recognizable 
interest in that which will be affected by the action.  Hoke v. Moyer, 865 P.2d 624, 628 
(Wyo.1993).  A potential litigant 
must show injury or potential injury by alleg[ing] a perceptible, 
rather than a speculative, harm resulting from the agency action.'  Foster's, Inc. v. City of 
Laramie, 718 P.2d 868, 872 (Wyo.1986).  
"The interest which will sustain a right to appeal must generally be 
substantial, immediate, and pecuniary.  
A future, contingent, or merely speculative interest is ordinarily not 
sufficient."'  L Slash X Cattle 
Company, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 623 P.2d 764, 769 (Wyo.1981) (quoting 
4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 180)."

 

Jolley, 
2002 WY 7, ¶ 7, 38 P.3d at 1076-77 (quoting Roe v. Board of County Com'rs, Campbell 
County, 997 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Wyo. 2000)).  Jacobs does not present specific facts 
to demonstrate how he has been injured.  
Roe, 997 P.2d  at 1023.  He alleges in his brief that the 
Commission acted without jurisdiction and that his rights to due process were 
violated; however, he fails to demonstrate how these alleged errors resulted in 
him being "aggrieved or adversely affected in fact . . .."  Id.  A review of the record reveals no 
"substantial, immediate, and pecuniary" harm resulting from the Commission's 
finding.  Jolley, 2002 WY 7, 
¶ 7, 38 P.3d  at 1076.  We refuse to speculate as to what 
effect, if any, the Commission's finding will have on 
Jacobs.

 

Ripeness

 

[¶8]      Until Jacobs is 
actually denied benefits for his abdominal pain, that issue is not ripe for our 
review.

 

The 
ripeness doctrine is a category of justiciability "developed to identify 
appropriate occasions for judicial action."  13 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal 
Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3529, p. 146 (1975).  The basic rationale of the ripeness 
requirement, like that of the justiciability requirement,

 

"* 
* * is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from 
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, 
and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an 
administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete 
way by the challenging parties.  The 
problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring us to evaluate both the 
fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of 
withholding court consideration."  
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 1515, 
18 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1967).

 

Industrial 
Siting Council of State of Wyo., 660 P.2d  at 779.  Benefits for Jacobs' chronic abdominal 
pain have not been denied and no decision determining that issue has been 
formalized.  Until a final 
determination is made by the appropriate administrative agency, the issue is not 
fit for our review.  This Court 
cannot reverse or affirm a denial of benefits that has not 
occurred.

 

            
Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel

 

[¶9]      The only 
perceptible hardship that may befall Jacobs as a result of our withholding 
consideration of this issue is the possibility that the Commission's statement 
that Jacobs failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to the abdominal 
pain may have some future collateral estoppel or res judicata effect.  A similar concern was raised in Himes 
v. Petro Engineering & Const., 2003 WY 5, 61 P.3d 393 (Wyo. 
2003).  There, the Commission denied Himes' 
request for an increased permanent physical impairment rating.  Id., 2003 WY 5, ¶ 9, 61 P.3d  at 
397.  In making that 
determination, the Commission concluded that Himes failed to prove that her 
current physical complaints were related to a work injury.  Id.  The Division then used that finding to 
inform Himes' health care providers that it would no longer pay for medical 
treatment for Himes.  
Id.  The Division 
later conceded that it should not have made any decision regarding Himes' future 
eligibility for benefits, as the Commission's order contained no language 
regarding future benefits.  
Id., 2003 WY 5, ¶ 20, 61 P.3d  at 400.  However, Himes claimed that this 
concession was insufficient because so long as the findings regarding causation 
were in the order, they could possibly have some future res judicata or 
collateral estoppel effect.  
Id., 2003 WY 5, ¶ 
21, 61 P.3d  at 400.  Although we 
acknowledged that those might be available defenses to the Division, we 
concluded "[i]t is not for this Court to decide if the doctrine of res judicata 
or collateral estoppel will apply in a future proceeding."  Id.

 

[¶10]   If Jacobs is denied benefits for 
his chronic abdominal pain, the Commission's finding that he failed to meet his 
burden of establishing causation may or may not have a res judicata or 
collateral estoppel effect.  That 
question, however, will have to be determined when and if it is properly before 
us.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶11]   Because Jacobs has not been denied 
benefits for his chronic abdominal pain, he was not aggrieved or adversely 
affected by the Commission's finding that he failed to meet his burden with 
respect to that issue, and therefore our review is not appropriate.  Likewise, until the Division actually 
denies benefits for Jacobs' chronic abdominal pain and the matter is properly 
and fully addressed, the issue is not ripe for our review.  Finally, we refuse to speculate as to 
the possible res judicata or collateral estoppel effect of the Commission's 
finding regarding Jacobs' chronic abdominal pain.

 

[¶12]   The Commission's determination is 
affirmed.

 

FOOTNOTES

  1Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) 
provides:

 

Subject 
to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence 
of any statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, 
any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an 
agency in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction, or any person 
affected in fact by a rule adopted by an agency, is entitled to judicial review 
in the district court for the county in which the administrative action or 
inaction was taken, or in which any real property affected by the administrative 
action or inaction is located, or if no real property is involved, in the 
district court for the county in which the party aggrieved or adversely affected 
by the administrative action or inaction resides or has its principal place of 
business. The procedure to be followed in the proceeding before the district 
court shall be in accordance with rules heretofore or hereinafter adopted by the 
Wyoming supreme court.