Case Title: Van Gundy v. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., Dept. of Employment, State of Wyo.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-298

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Van Gundy v. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., Dept. of Employment, State of Wyo.1998 WY 126964 P.2d 1268Case Number: 97-298Decided: 10/01/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

June I. 
VAN GUNDY; Juan Rascon; and Robert Scott Smith, Appellants (Petitioners),

v.

WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, 
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Respondent),

 June I. 
VAN GUNDY; Robert Scott Smith; and Juan Rascon, Appellants 
(Petitioners),

 v.

 INTERNALHEARING UNIT, DIVISION OF 
WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, STATE 
OF

WYOMING, Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal from the District Court, 
Natrona County, W. Thomas Sullins, J.

 

Donald L. Painter, Casper, 
for Appellants (Petitioners).

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, 
Cheyenne, for Appellee (Respondent).

 

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

 * Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference.

 

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

 [¶1] We consider in this appeal three cases 
consolidated before the district court for review of rulings by the Internal 
Hearing Unit (IHU) of the Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation 
(Division). The district court certified the consolidated cases to this court 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). Having previously found that the Division did not 
exceed its authority in adopting the IHU procedure, we affirm the IHU's 
rulings.

 

                                             
I. ISSUE

 

[¶2] Appellants state one 
issue for our review:

 

          
1. The legal existence of the Internal Hearing Unit 
(IHU).

 

[¶3] As appellee, the 
Division states the issues as:1

 

A. 
The Division made a rule authorizing a hearing within the Division to determine 
the timeliness of an employee's objection.

 

Did 
the Division have authority to adopt the internal hearing 
procedure?

 

B. 
The Division denied attorney fees for services rendered in the internal hearing 
proceeding, and the Employees concede they were not entitled to 
fees.

 

          
              
Was the denial of fees in accordance with law?

 

                                             
II. FACTS

 

[¶4] The facts necessary to 
our review are common to all three appellants. Appellants made claims for 
worker's compensation benefits, and final determination letters denying the 
requested benefits were issued by the Division. The final determination letters 
included a deadline for response to the determination; all three Appellants 
responded after the deadline.

 

[¶5] The Division issued 
final determination letters stating the responses were too late, and providing 
new deadlines for contesting this determination. Timely responses were made by 
appellants, and hearings were requested on the matter of timely filing of the 
original responses. The Division issued each appellant a Notice of Commencement 
of Contested Case and Assignment Order informing each appellant his or her case 
had been referred to the IHU, and that the IHU was assigning the case to the 
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for fact finding.

 

[¶6] Appellants filed 
motions to dismiss, arguing that the IHU was not a validly created agency and 
that only a "hearing examiner" from the OAH had authority to conduct the 
contested case hearing each appellant had requested. The OAH recommended 
granting the motions, and the IHU followed that recommendation. Appellants 
sought review in the district court, which combined the three cases and 
certified them to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b).

 

                                      
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶7] When a case is 
certified to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we examine the decision 
as if we were the reviewing court of first instance and will affirm the decision 
on any legal ground appearing in the record. Sheridan Planning Ass'n v. Board of 
Sheridan County Com'rs, 924 P.2d 988, 990 (Wyo. 1996).

 

                                          
IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶8] Appellants' only 
complaint on appeal is that the Division did not have the authority to create 
the IHU, and therefore any determinations made by the IHU are void. Appellants 
ask us to refer their respective claims to the OAH for appointment of counsel 
and hearings on their late filings.

 

[¶9] We recently addressed 
this same issue in Sheneman v. Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Internal Hearing Unit, 956 P.2d 344, 350 (Wyo. 1998):

 

Based on our examination of the Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Act and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act as a whole, 
looking at the component parts as well as the purposes of the acts and 
underlying policy considerations, we hold that the Division had ample authority 
to form the Internal Hearing Unit. Additionally, we hold the Division was 
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the resolution of 
contested matters that are not required to be heard by the Medical Commission or 
the Office of Administrative Hearings, including agency review of claimed late 
filings.

 

See also Poll v. State ex 
rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 963 P.2d 977, 980 (Wyo. 1998). Further 
discussion of the IHU's legal existence is unnecessary.

 

                                          
V. CONCLUSION

 

[¶11] The orders granting 
appellants' motions to dismiss are hereby affirmed.

  

 

FOOTNOTES

1The 
Division also addresses an "observation" made by appellants that their requests 
for attorneys fees were denied because the IHU is without authority to appoint 
counsel to claimants appearing before it. Appellants do not raise the fee 
dispute as an issue, conceding that it would be better left for a future case. 
We will await that future case, which we hope will provide appropriate appellate 
briefing, before ruling on the IHU's authority to appoint 
counsel.