Case Title: SLATER v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIV.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 00-103

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
SLATER v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIV.2001 WY 2918 P.3d 1195Case Number: 00-103Decided: 03/13/2001
 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2000

                                                                                                March 
13, 2001  

IN THE 
MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF ANTHONY

SLATER, 
AN EMPLOYEE OF COOK

McCANN 
CONCRETE:

ANTHONY 
SLATER,

(Petitioner/Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE OF 
WYOMING ex rel.

WYOMING 
WORKERS' SAFETY AND

COMPENSATION 
DIVISION,

Appellee

(Respondent/Objector-Defendant).

  
    W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the 
District Court of Laramie County

                         
The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

 Representing 
Appellant:

            
Joseph P. Fonfara of Fonfara Law Offices, Cheyenne, Wyoming  

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and 
Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General  

  

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J.; THOMAS,* GOLDEN and KITE, JJ.; and DAN SPANGLER, D.J. 
(RET.)

* Concurred 
prior to retirement

              
SPANGLER, District Judge (Retired).

 [¶1]           
This is 
an appeal from a decision by a hearing examiner granting a petition filed by the 
Division of Workers' Safety and Compensation (the division) for modification of 
an award on the ground of mistake.  
We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2]           
The 
issue is as follows:  Did the 
hearing examiner erroneously modify an award upon the ground of mistake under 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-605(a) (LEXIS 1999) when the division made an error in 
its calculations?

FACTS

[¶3]           
On 
February 24, 1998, the appellant, Anthony Slater, suffered a work-related 
injury.  He eventually applied for 
permanent partial disability benefits.  
He and a claims analyst for the division discussed the possible award and 
a child support withholding order against him.  On January 25, 1999, the division issued 
a final determination awarding benefits in the amount of $28,991.56.  The appellant accepted the award on 
February 10, 1999, and the division began paying the 
benefits.

[¶4]           
On 
October 18, 1999, the division filed a petition for modification.  It contended that the correct amount of 
the award should have been $21,543.36 because the claims analyst had incorrectly 
added the amount of the delinquent child support to the award instead of 
subtracting it.  The claims analyst 
did all the calculations without participation from the 
appellant.

[¶5]           
Following 
the hearing, the parties reported an additional mistake had been made.  The correct amount for the permanent 
partial disability award was $25,065.35, minus the delinquent child support of 
$7,325.90.  The hearing examiner 
ordered that the award be modified accordingly.

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶6]           
The 
facts are not in dispute.  Our 
review is limited to determining whether the hearing examiner correctly applied 
the law.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (LEXIS 1999).

DISCUSSION

[¶7]           
Section 
27-14-605(a) reads as follows:

(a)  If 
a determination is made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits 
under this act, an application may be made to the division by any party within 
four (4) years from the date of the last payment for additional benefits or for 
a modification of the amount of benefits on the ground of increase or decrease 
of incapacity due solely to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or 
fraud.  The division may, upon the 
same grounds and within the same time period, apply for modification of medical 
and disability benefits to a hearing examiner or the medical commission, as 
appropriate.

[¶8]           
The 
appellant argues that the settlement agreement he made with the division is a 
contract which can be modified only in the event of mutual mistake.  However, the statute does not contain 
that restriction.  Nor does the 
appellant cite any case law to support that 
interpretation.

[¶9]           
The 
appellant also contends that modification can occur only if the mistake is made 
by a finder of fact.  Again, the 
statute does not include this limitation.  
The appellant cites the cases of Smith v. State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 965 P.2d 687 (Wyo. 1998), and 
Conn v. Ed Wederski Construction Company, 668 P.2d 649 (Wyo. 1983).  In the Conn case, this court 
stated:

Other 
jurisdictions having statutes which provide for the reopening of worker's 
compensation cases on the ground of mistake have limited relief under their 
statutes to those situations in which a mistake in the determination of a 
material fact has been made by a fact finder.

668 P.2d  
at 653.

[¶10]       
The same 
language was repeated in the Smith case.  In both the Smith and Conn 
cases, the finder of fact on the modification petition determined that there was 
no mistake.  The Smith 
opinion held that a misunderstanding as to procedural requirements is not a 
sufficient basis to claim a mistake under the statute.  965 P.2d  at 691.  To the extent that the Smith and 
Conn cases required the mistake to be made by the finder of fact, they 
are overruled.  Any mistake made by 
a claimant or the division which results in more or less than the claimant 
should receive will be subject to review under 
§ 27-14-605(a).

[¶11]       
Of 
significance to the facts of this case are the rulings in State ex rel. 
Wyoming Workers' Compensation Division v. Jerding, 868 P.2d 244 (Wyo. 1994), 
and State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division v. White, 837 P.2d 1095 (Wyo. 1992).  The 
Jerding case ruled that the division had authority to petition for 
modification of its mistaken determination that an injury was compensable, 
stating:

We 
perceive no public policy which favors the payment of any portion of an 
unjustified worker's compensation claim.  
The purpose of § 27-14-605(a) is to balance the concept of finality with 
the desire to see that a claimant receives no less and no more than that to 
which he is lawfully entitled.

868 P.2d  
at 249.

[¶12]       
The 
White decision upheld the calculation of the award but noted that part of 
the amount had already been paid by the division.  Citing § 27-14-605(a), the opinion noted 
that a mistake had been proven and the award would be modified.  837 P.2d  at 
1098-99.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]       
We find 
that the hearing examiner correctly applied the statute to the facts and 
properly modified the award because of the mistaken calculations by the 
division.  Therefore, we affirm the 
order granting the petition for modification.