Case Title: McElreath v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.,

Citation: 

Docket Number: 94-259

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-08-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
McElreath v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div.,1995 WY 139901 P.2d 1103Case Number: 94-259Decided: 08/25/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
In 
the Matter of the Workers' Compensation Claim of Donald H. McELREATH, 

Appellant 
(Employee-Claimant),

v.

STATE 
of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' COMPENSATION DIVISION, 

Appellee 
(Objector-Defendant).

 

L. 
Craig Clayton, Casper, for appellant.

Joseph 
B. Meyer, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; and 
Jennifer A. Evans, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

Before 
THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ., and HARTMAN, District 
Judge.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      The only question 
to be resolved in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion 
in dismissing the attempt by Donald H. McElreath (McElreath) to obtain judicial 
review of an adverse decision by the hearing examiner for the Workers' 
Compensation Division (Division) for failure to comply with WYO.R.APP.P. 12.06. 
This case arises from a denial of workers' compensation benefits to McElreath. A 
second question is claimed by McElreath: whether the filed notice of appeal was 
sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court, when it failed to 
satisfy the requirements of WYO. R.APP.P. 12.06. The Division, however, concedes 
McElreath's notice of appeal was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction. We hold, 
because McElreath filed a notice of appeal which did not encompass the 
information required by WYO.R.APP.P. 12.06, rather than a petition for review, 
the district court did not abuse its discretion by invoking the dismissal 
sanction found in WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03. We affirm the district 
court.

[¶2]      In his Brief of 
Appellant, McElreath states the following issues:

1. 
Whether a district court must dismiss an appeal from an administrative agency 
action, where a notice of the appeal is timely given to the district court and 
all interested parties, but where the information in the appeal document does 
not strictly comply with the requirements of WRAP Rule 12.06 regarding a 
petition for review. In other words, this issue is whether the requirements of 
Rule 12.06 are jurisdictional, or whether a notice under WRAP Rule 2.07 that the 
appeal is taken satisfies the jurisdictional requirement.

2. 
Whether the "Notice of Appeal" filed in this case contained sufficient 
information to withstand dismissal for failure to comply with the requirements 
of Rule 12.06.

3. 
Whether, where notice that the appeal is taken is timely given, a District Court 
must find prejudice to a party or other sufficient grounds to dismiss an appeal, 
in order to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the requirements of 
Rule 12.06.

In 
the Brief of Appellee, the Division restates the issues in this 
way:

A. 
Whether the district court may exercise appellate jurisdiction over an appeal 
from an administrative agency action where the petition for review fails to 
comply with the requirements of Rule 12.06 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure.

B. 
Assuming a district court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction where the 
petition for review fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 12.06 of the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, whether the district court abused its 
discretion in dismissing the Notice of Appeal for failure to comply with those 
requirements.

[¶3]      McElreath 
suffered a retinal detachment with a retinal tear in his left eye while at work. 
He attributed this to heavy lifting as a tool pusher for the well-drilling 
service where he was employed. He initially received benefits from the Division 
for the retinal eye injuries. Following a contested case hearing, however, the 
hearing examiner found the benefits had been paid to McElreath erroneously. That 
finding was attributable to evidence from his treating physician and another 
expert witness, a board-certified ophthalmologist, that the injury, to a 
reasonable degree of medical probability, was not caused by McElreath lifting 
heavy objects at work. The hearing examiner denied any further benefits to 
McElreath, but he did not require that McElreath reimburse the Division for 
benefits already paid.

[¶4]      McElreath sought 
judicial review of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Order Denying 
Benefits entered in the Office of Administrative Hearings. The procedural 
aspects of judicial review of decisions by administrative agencies are found in 
WYO. R.APP.P. 12. Specifically with respect to initiating review, WYO.R.APP.P. 
12.06 provides:

[¶5]      The petition for 
review shall include:

(a) 
A concise statement showing jurisdiction and venue;

(b) 
The specific issues of law addressed to the district court for 
review;

(c) 
A brief statement of the facts relevant to the legal issues raised before the 
agency, showing the nature of the controversy in which the legal issues arose; 
and

(d) 
A copy of the agency decision shall be attached as an 
appendix.

The 
petition shall not exceed five letter pages in length, excluding appendix, and 
shall be in the format described in Rule 7.05(b).

[¶6]      McElreath did not 
file a petition for review but, instead, filed a notice of appeal. For purposes 
of comparison with WYO.R.APP.P. 12.06, we quote the notice of 
appeal:

Employee-Claimant 
Donald H. McElreath, by and through his attorney, and pursuant to the Wyoming 
Rules of Appellate Procedure, hereby gives notice to counsel of record and the 
Hearing Examiner that an appeal to the Wyoming Third Judicial District Court in 
and for Sweetwater County is hereby taken by the Employee-Claimant. Said 
Employee-Claimant further notifies the parties and the Court as 
follows:

1. 
The party taking this appeal is Donald H. McElreath.

2. 
The Order appealed from is the Order Denying Benefits on/or about May 26, 
1994.

3. 
This appeal is to be taken to the Wyoming Third Judicial District 
Court.

4. 
Appended hereto are the claim herein and the said Order Denying 
Benefits.

DATED 
this 22nd day of June, 1994.

It 
is readily apparent that McElreath's notice of appeal, while perhaps marginally 
offering "a concise statement showing jurisdiction and venue," failed to 
articulate "the specific issues of law addressed to the district court for 
review," and it did not contain "a brief statement of the facts relevant to the 
legal issues raised." A copy of the agency's decision was 
attached.

[¶7]      The Division 
filed a motion to dismiss in response to the notice of appeal. The Division 
asserted, because a petition for review had not been timely filed, the district 
court did not have jurisdiction. McElreath then submitted his Objection to 
Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to Amend Appeal asserting that the notice 
of appeal was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction and seeking leave to file an 
appropriate petition for review. After a hearing on the issues raised by the 
motion to dismiss, the district court entered its Order Dismissing Appeal, 
finding that "this appeal should be dismissed for failure of the Notice of 
Appeal to conform to the requirements of Rule 12.06, W.R.A.P." McElreath has 
appealed from that order.

[¶8]      The Division now 
concedes the jurisdictional issue based upon our decision in Claim of Taffner, 
821 P.2d 103 (Wyo. 1991). We there held a district court did have authority to 
consider a petition for review that was deficient with respect to the criteria 
found in WYO.R.APP.P. 12.06, and it did not commit reversible error in 
entertaining the review. We have consistently adhered to a strict requirement 
that "the timely filing of a notice of appeal * * * is jurisdictional" under 
WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03, and an appeal filed after the deadline results in an 
incurable jurisdictional defect. Miller v. Murdock, 788 P.2d 614, 616 (Wyo. 
1990); Wiens v. American Motors Corp., 717 P.2d 322, 323 (Wyo. 1986); Matter of 
Estate of Campbell, 673 P.2d 645, 648 (Wyo. 1983); Cates v. Barb, 650 P.2d 1159, 
1161 (Wyo. 1982); Sanderson v. State, 649 P.2d 677, 679 (Wyo. 1982). If a notice 
of appeal is not timely filed, a court has no jurisdiction to resolve the case. 
We agree with the Division, however, that Taffner holds, in effect, that 
noncompliance with WYO.R.APP.P. 12.06 does not result in a lack of jurisdiction, 
so long as some document evidencing an intention to seek judicial review is 
timely filed.

[¶9]      We turn then to 
the question of whether the district court abused its discretion by invoking the 
sanctions found in WYO. R.APP.P. 1.03, which provides:

The 
timely filing of a notice of appeal, which complies with Rule 2.07(a), is 
jurisdictional. The failure to comply with any other rule of appellate 
procedure, or any order of court, does not affect the validity of the appeal, 
but is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems 
appropriate, including but not limited to: citation of counsel or a party 
for contempt; refusal to consider the offending party's contentions; assessment 
of costs; dismissal; or affirmance. (Emphasis added.)

[¶10]   McElreath admits his notice of 
appeal "did not follow the requirements of Rule 12.06 with particularity." The 
admitted deficiencies, as pointed out by the Division, are the failure to state 
"the specific issues of law addressed to the district court for review" and "a 
brief statement of the facts relevant to the legal issues raised before the 
agency, showing the nature of the controversy in which the legal issues arose * 
* *." There clearly exists a "failure to comply with any other rule of appellate 
procedure [WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03]."

[¶11]   McElreath contends, however, that 
the district court abused its discretion in invoking the sanction of dismissal 
for failure to conform to the appellate rules. He argues prejudice to the 
Division must be demonstrated because of the deficiency of his notice of appeal. 
WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03, however, does not include any requirement for prejudice, but 
simply provides that the failure "is ground only for such action as the 
appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited to: * * * dismissal 
* * *." The language in WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03 is a classic statement of 
discretionary power, and the only issue to be resolved is whether there was an 
abuse of discretion in dismissing McElreath's appeal.

[¶12]   In Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 
897 (Wyo. 1986), we built upon an earlier definition of abuse of discretion 
stating:

Judicial 
discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from 
objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what 
is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or 
capriciously. Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wn. App. 495, 704 P.2d 1236 (1985). 
(Emphasis added.)

Martin 
referred to Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo. 1980) in which we set 
forth this definition of an abuse of discretion:

A 
court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the 
bounds of reason under the circumstances. In determining whether there has been 
an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could 
reasonably conclude as it did. An abuse of discretion has been said to mean an 
error of law committed by the court under the 
circumstances.

[¶13]   Certainly, the district court did 
not commit an error of law in dismissing McElreath's appeal. WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03 
states dismissal is an appropriate remedy for failure to comply with the 
appellate rules. Dismissal is, indeed, a harsh sanction, but one permissible 
under WYO.R.APP.P. 1.03.

[¶14]   The file before the district court 
essentially manifested an effort to reexamine a factual conclusion of the 
hearing examiner which was based upon evidence in the record. The district 
court, in this instance, did exercise "sound judgment" "under the circumstances 
and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously." The circumstances include the 
apparent lack of merit in the case presented, and the district court did not act 
arbitrarily or capriciously in ordering dismissal. 

[¶15]   We hold there was no abuse of 
discretion by the district court in invoking the sanction of dismissal against 
McElreath. The Order Dismissing Appeal is affirmed.