Case Title: STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION v. LEONARD A. SINGER

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0064

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION v. LEONARD A. SINGER2011 WY 57Case Number: S-10-0064Decided: 03/30/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
STATE OF WYOMING, ex 
rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
LEONARD A. 
SINGER,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

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

The 
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; James 
Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Douglas M. Lesley, Special 
Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Mark 
L. Carman, Carman Law Office, PC, Billings, Montana.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, challenges an order from the 
Office of Administrative Hearings granting permanent total disability benefits 
to Leonard Singer.  The Division 
contends the award should have been reduced by the amount of the award Mr. 
Singer previously received for his permanent partial impairment.  The Division challenged the hearing 
examiner's ruling in district court and the appeal was certified to this 
Court.  We 
reverse.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]      
The Division presents 
the following issue:

 
 
Did the hearing 
examiner, as a matter of fact and law, misinterpret and misapply Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§§ 27-14-405 and 27-14-406 in concluding the legislature did not intend for 
previous physical impairment awards to be deducted from permanent total 
disability awards granted pursuant to the Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Act?

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
This case involves 
the relationships among permanent partial impairment, permanent partial 
disability, and permanent total disability awards.  Mr. Singer experienced a work-related 
injury in 2002 and received workers' compensation benefits related to the 
injury.  In 2003, it was determined 
that Mr. Singer had a 30 percent whole body permanent partial impairment due to 
his injury and he accepted a permanent partial impairment award of $22,118.45 
from the Division.  In 2004, he 
received a permanent partial disability award of $49,009.94 as a result of the 
same injury.  In 2009, the Division 
determined that Mr. Singer was entitled to a permanent total disability award of 
$202,000.80 due to the progression of his injury.  

 
 

[¶4]        
The Division reduced 
Mr. Singer's permanent total disability award by $49,009.94 for the previous 
permanent partial disability award and by $22,118.45 for the previous permanent 
partial impairment award.  The award 
was also discounted due to Mr. Singer's election to receive the award in 
lump-sum.  The resulting amount of 
$115,159.18 was paid to Mr. Singer.  
Mr. Singer agreed that his previous permanent partial disability award 
should be deducted, but objected to the deduction of his previous permanent 
partial impairment award.  The 
matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested 
case hearing.  The hearing examiner 
concluded that the Division had incorrectly reduced Mr. Singer's permanent total 
disability award by the amount paid to Mr. Singer for his previous permanent 
partial impairment award.  The 
Division petitioned for review by the district court.  The district court certified the matter 
to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), and we accepted the case for 
review.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶5]        
The facts in this 
case are not in dispute.  We are 
presented solely with a question of statutory interpretation.  When the issue is one of interpretation 
and application of law, we give no deference to an agency's 
decision:

 
 
The interpretation 
and correct application of the provisions of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation 
Act are questions of law over which our review authority is plenary.  Conclusions of law made by an 
administrative agency are affirmed only if they are in accord with the law.  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.          

 
 

Ball 
v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 
2010 WY 128, ¶ 18, 239 P.3d 621, 627 (Wyo. 2010) 
(quoting State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div. v. 
Faulkner, 2007 WY 31, ¶ 10, 152 P.3d 394, 396 (Wyo. 2007)).  In other words, we review de novo 
an agency's conclusions of law.  Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 
84, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d 554, 561-62 (Wyo. 2008).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶6]        
The statute at the 
heart of this dispute is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406, which states: 

 
 
                        
§ 27-14-406.  Permanent total disability; 
benefits.

 
 

(a) Subject to W.S. 
27-14-602, upon certification by a physician licensed to practice surgery or 
medicine that an injury results in permanent total disability as defined under 
W.S. 27-14-102(a)(xvi), an injured employee shall receive for eighty (80) months 
a monthly payment as provided by W.S. 27-14-403(c) less any previous awards under W.S. 
27-14-405 which were involved in the determination of permanent total 
disability, and dependent children shall receive an award as provided by 
W.S. 27-14-403(b).  The monthly 
payment amount computed under W.S. 27-14-403(c) and any amount awarded under 
W.S. 27-14-408 shall constitute the 
exclusive benefit for both the physical impairment and the economic loss 
resulting from an injury, including loss of earnings, extra expenses 
associated with the injury and vocational rehabilitation. An employee shall not 
receive benefits under this section if receiving benefits under W.S. 27-14-404 
or 27-14-405.

 
 
(LexisNexis 2009) 
(emphasis added).  It is undisputed 
that Mr. Singer's previous impairment award was made "under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-405."  The hearing examiner 
concluded, however, that the permanent partial impairment award should not have 
been deducted from the permanent total disability award because it was not an 
award that was "involved in the determination of permanent total 
disability."  The Division disagrees 
with that interpretation.  

 
 

[¶7]        
In 
resolving this issue we are guided by well-established rules of statutory 
interpretation.

 
 

First, 
we determine if the statute is ambiguous or unambiguous.  A statute is unambiguous if its wording 
is such that reasonable persons 
are 
able to agree as to its meaning with consistency and predictability.  Unless another meaning is clearly 
intended, words and phrases shall be taken in their ordinary and usual sense. 
 Conversely, a statute is ambiguous 
only if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying 
interpretations.

 
 

Sinclair 
Oil v. Wyoming Dep't of Revenue, 2010 
WY 122, ¶ 7, 238 P.3d 568, 570-71 (Wyo. 2010) (quoting BP America 
Production Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 
2006 
WY 27, ¶ 20, 130 P.3d 438, 464 (Wyo. 2006)).  When a statute is ambiguous, 
"the 
court will resort to general principles of statutory construction in an attempt 
to ascertain legislative intent."  
Deloges v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' 
Compensation Division, 750 P.2d 1329, 1331 (Wyo. 1988).  

 
 

[¶8]        
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-406 mandates deduction of "any previous awards under W.S. 27-14-405 which 
were involved in the determination of permanent total disability." Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-405 provides for both impairment and disability 
awards:

 
 
§ 
27-14-405.  Permanent partial disability; benefits; schedule; 
permanent disfigurement; disputed ratings.

 
 
. 
. .

 
 

(f) An injured 
employee suffering an ascertainable loss may apply for a permanent partial 
impairment award as provided in this section.      (g) An injured employee's 
impairment shall be rated by a licensed physician using the most recent edition 
of the American Medical Association's guide to the evaluation of permanent 
impairment. The award shall be paid as provided by W.S. 27-14-403 for the number 
of months determined by multiplying the percentage of impairment by sixty (60) 
months.        
(h) An 
injured employee awarded permanent partial impairment benefits may apply for a 
permanent disability award subject to the following terms and conditions:    

(i) The injured employee is 
because of the injury, unable to return to employment at a wage that is at least 
ninety-five percent (95%) of the monthly gross earnings the employee was earning 
at the time of injury; (ii) An application for permanent 
partial disability is filed not before three (3) months after the date of 
ascertainable loss or three (3) months before the last scheduled impairment 
payment, whichever occurs later, but in no event later than one (1) year 
following the later date; and       
(iii) The 
employee has actively sought suitable work, considering the employee's health, 
education, training and experience.

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-405(f)-(h) (LexisNexis 2009).1  

 
 

[¶9]        
A permanent partial 
impairment award is a prerequisite to a permanent partial disability award.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h).  Because of this requirement, the 
Division asserts that Mr. Singer's prior impairment award was necessarily 
"involved in the determination of permanent total disability."  It is difficult to disagree with that 
conclusion.  The word "involved" is 
defined as "[c]onnected by 
participation or association."  
American Heritage College Dictionary 730 (4th ed. 2004).  Clearly, Mr. Singer's prior 
impairment award was "connected" to or "associated" with his disability 
award.  It is tempting to end our 
analysis at this point.  It would be 
possible to conclude that the statute is unambiguous and that deduction of any 
prior impairment award is mandated by the statute.  Unfortunately, resolution of this issue 
is not so clear cut.

 
 

[¶10]     
The Division asserts 
that all prior impairment awards made under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 must be 
deducted from any permanent total disability award.  Mr. Singer counters that such an 
interpretation would render the phrase "which were involved in the determination 
of permanent total disability" superfluous.  If all impairment and disability awards 
made under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 must be deducted, according to 
Mr. Singer, there is no need for the language in dispute.  The statute could have achieved the same 
result by removing the phrase "which were involved in the determination of 
permanent total disability."  The 
deduction language of the statute would simply read "less any previous awards 
under W.S. 27-14-405."  

 
 

[¶11]     
Mr. Singer's position 
is at the opposite end of the spectrum from that of the Division.  He contends the deduction requirement 
applies only to prior disability 
awards made under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 and never requires deduction of an 
impairment award.  In making this assertion, Mr. Singer 
relies primarily on precedent from this Court recognizing the distinction 
between "impairment" and "disability."  
The Division counters that the legislature could have achieved the same 
result by limiting the deduction language to disability awards.  The statute would then read, "less any 
previous awards under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)."  The Division also points out that we 
must interpret all portions of the statute in pari materia, and that adoption of 
Mr. Singer's interpretation would contradict the clear expression of legislative 
intent found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406(a), which states:  "The monthly payment amount computed 
under W.S. 27-14-403(c) and any amount awarded under W.S. 27-14-408 shall constitute the exclusive benefit for 
both the physical impairment and the economic loss resulting from an injury, 
including loss of earnings, extra expenses associated with the injury and 
vocational rehabilitation."  
(Emphasis added.)  

 
 

[¶12]     
We must attempt to 
discern a legislative intent that provides meaning to the disputed phrase.  "[I]t is a fundamental rule of statutory 
interpretation that all portions of an act must be read in pari materia, and 
every word, clause, and sentence must be construed so that no part is 
inoperative or superfluous."  
Deloges, 750 P.2d  at 1331.

 
 

[¶13]     
The apparent purpose 
of the statutorily required deduction is to prevent a double recovery of 
benefits to the injured worker.  
"[T]he law does not allow one to receive double compensation for the 
same injury."  Taylor v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
& Comp. Div., 2003 WY 
83, ¶ 11, 72 P.3d 799, 802 (Wyo. 2003).  
It is undisputed that receipt of payment for a partial disability in 
addition to payment in full for a total disability for the same injury would be 
a double recovery.  It is not so 
clear that payment for a partial impairment plus payment for a total disability 
for the same injury would also be a double 
recovery.

 
 

[¶14]     
There is a 
distinction between the concepts of impairment and disability.  This distinction is indicated by the 
Worker's Compensation Act itself, our precedent, and the AMA Guides to the 
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Guides), which are used to rate an injured 
worker's impairment pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(g).  Each of these authorities indicates that 
"impairment" connotes physical loss associated with an injury, whereas 
"disability" connotes economic loss associated with an injury.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xv), 
(xvi) (defining disability in terms of the economic loss to an injured 
employee); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 (indicating that an employee's inability 
to work is a prerequisite to a disability award, but that the ability to work 
has no impact on eligibility for an impairment award); Himes v. Petro Engineering and 
Construction, 2003 WY 5, ¶ 16 n.1, 61 P.3d 393, 398 n.1 (Wyo. 2003) (noting 
that the Worker's Compensation Act provides that a permanent partial impairment 
rating "is strictly a medical question and is unrelated to the claimant's 
ability to work"); McCarty v. Bear Creek 
Uranium Company, 694 P.2d 93, 94 (Wyo. 1985) (stating that "[i]n worker's 
compensation law, disability means an impairment of earning capacity"); Robert 
D. Rondinelli, et al., AMA Guides to the 
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 5 (6th ed. 2008) (defining "impairment" 
in terms of loss of use of body structure or body function and defining 
"disability" in terms of activity or participation limitations).  

 
 

[¶15]     
Mr. Singer contends 
that the distinction is significant.  
He notes that it is possible to incur an impairment without incurring a 
disability.  He points out that 
under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405, a qualifying impaired worker may receive both 
a permanent partial impairment award and a permanent partial disability 
award.  He contends that 
interpreting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406 to require deduction of an impairment 
award, as urged by the Division, would produce an absurd result.  There is, he contends, no logical reason 
for mandating deduction of impairment awards under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406 
on the basis that they constitute a double recovery when Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-405 clearly allows a worker to receive both benefits.  Stated differently, if impairment 
benefits are included in all disability awards, they should be deducted from a 
permanent partial disability award under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405.  That statute does not require such a 
deduction.

 
 

[¶16]     
In making this 
argument, however, Mr. Singer ignores a significant statutory difference between 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406.  The total disability statute, Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 27-14-406, states that "[t]he monthly payment amount computed under W.S. 
27-14-403(c) and any amount awarded under W.S. 27-14-408 shall constitute the 
exclusive benefit for both the physical impairment and the economic loss 
resulting from an injury."  This 
language indicates legislative intent that a permanent total disability award 
includes benefits for both disability and impairment.  There is no similar indication of 
legislative intent in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405.  Further, Mr. Singer's argument ignores 
the possibility that the legislature included an impairment award in the 
calculation of a permanent total disability award, but not in the calculation of 
a permanent partial disability award.2  

 
 

[¶17]     
Mr. Singer and the 
Division have both approached the issue in all or nothing fashion.  The Division contends that all awards 
under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 must be deducted.  Mr. Singer contends that only disability 
awards are required to be deducted.  
Neither has addressed the possibility that some impairment awards are 
required to be deducted, but others are not.

 
 

[¶18]     
According to  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(g), an 
impairment "shall be rated by a licensed physician using the most recent edition 
of the American Medical Association's guide to the evaluation of permanent 
impairment."  The Guides explain 
that an "[i]mpairment rating enables the physician to render a quantitative 
estimate of losses to the individual as a result of their health condition, 
disorder, or disease.  Impairment 
ratings are defined by anatomic, structural, functional, and diagnostic 
criteria."  AMA Guides, at 5.  The Guides use the concept of "whole 
person impairment," which takes into account "the severity of the organ or body 
system impairment and the resulting functional limitations of the whole 
person."  Id. at 21 (emphasis in original).  When an employee has multiple 
impairments, the Guides require each impairment to be calculated individually 
and then combined to reach a whole person impairment rating.  A physician is instructed to "[c]ombine 
multiple impairments for a final composite whole person impairment number, . . . 
[d]iscuss how individual ratings were combined or added to create a final 
number[, and] . . . [i]nclude a summary list of impairments and impairment 
ratings by percentage, including calculation of the whole person impairment, as 
appropriate."  Id. at 28.  The Guides' requirement that impairments 
be individually rated permits identification of the particular injuries, and 
consequently, the particular components of awards, that are related to a 
determination of permanent total disability. 

 
 

[¶19]     
It is not difficult 
to envision a scenario where an employee sustains multiple injuries in a single 
work-related incident.  For example, 
the employee, in one incident, could injure his back and foot resulting in 
permanent impairment from both injuries.  
It is possible that the back injury, irrespective of the foot injury, 
could progress and eventually result in a permanent total disability award.  If the statutory deduction language was 
applied in such a situation, it would be possible to conclude that the 
legislature intended that the portion of the partial impairment award 
attributable to the back injury should be deducted, but that the portion of the 
partial impairment award attributable to the foot injury should not be deducted 
because it was not "involved in the determination of permanent total 
disability." 

 
 

[¶20]     
In the final 
analysis, we must conclude that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406 is ambiguous.  The language in dispute is susceptible 
to more than one reasonable interpretation.  Because an impairment award under Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 is a prerequisite to a disability award, it is possible 
to conclude that the legislature intended that all impairment and disability 
awards under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 must be deducted.  Because of the distinction between 
impairment and disability, it is also possible that the legislature intended 
that no previous impairment awards should be deducted.  Finally, it is possible to conclude that 
the legislature intended that some, but not all, impairment awards must be 
deducted.

 
 

[¶21]     
Having concluded that 
the statutory language is ambiguous, we must determine legislative intent.  We do so by applying our rules of 
statutory construction.  We must 
then apply the statute to the specific facts at issue 
here.

 
 

[¶22]     
In this case, Mr. 
Singer does not contend that there is any aspect of his impairment that is 
unrelated to his permanent total disability.  He contends that none of his prior 
impairment award should be deducted and that the statute should be interpreted 
to require deduction of disability awards only.  We are unable to reach that conclusion. 

 
 

[¶23]     
When we apply our 
rules of statutory construction, we are forced to conclude that the legislature 
intended that Mr. Singer's prior impairment award must be deducted from his 
permanent total disability award.  
As previously mentioned, we must construe the statute in pari materia.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406(a) contains 
a clear expression of legislative intent:  
"The monthly payment amount . . . shall constitute the exclusive benefit for both the physical 
impairment and the economic loss resulting from an injury."  (Emphasis added.)  The hearing examiner did not take this 
language into account in arriving at his interpretation of the statute.  We must also attempt to give meaning to 
"every word, clause, and sentence . . . so that no part is inoperative or 
superfluous."  Deloges, 750 P.2d  at 1331.  Under Mr. Singer's 
interpretation, the disputed phrase would be superfluous.  The Division contends that the phrase is 
not superfluous, arguing that the statute was written broadly to include those 
situations "wherein a single worker is involved in more than one accident and 
possibly with multiple employers."  We are not convinced that is what the 
legislature intended.  But, under 
the facts presented, we need not resolve that issue.  

 
 

[¶24]     
Forced to choose 
between an interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-406(a) that would  require deduction of all impairment 
awards or none, as in the case presented here, we must conclude that the 
legislature intended deduction of Mr. Singer's prior impairment award.  Because the issue has not been presented 
or briefed, we do not determine whether the legislature intended that a prior 
impairment award must be deducted in every case.  

 
 

[¶25]     
In conclusion, we 
hold that the OAH erred in failing to require deduction of Mr. Singer's 
prior impairment award.  We remand 
to the district court with instructions that the case be remanded to the OAH for 
entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

[¶26]     
FOOTNOTES

1Sections (a) through 
(e) were repealed and renumbered when the Worker's Compensation Act was amended 
in 1994.  1994 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 
86, § 2.

 
 

2The payment period 
for permanent disability benefits was increased from 60 months to 80 months when 
the Worker's Compensation Act was amended in 1994.  This change coincided with the addition 
of the impairment benefit for the injured worker.  1994 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 86, § 
2.