Title: DeLoge v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

STEVEN A. DELOGE v. STATE OF WYOMING EX REL., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2011 WY 154Case Number: No. S-11-0072Decided: 11/09/2011NOTICE: 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. 2011
 
STEVEN 
A. DELOGE,Appellant (Petitioner/Claimant),v.STATE OF WYOMING 
ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION,Appellee 
(Respondent).
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County
The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Vaughn 
H. Neubauer of Laramie, Wyoming.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General.
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
VOIGT, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      The appellant, 
Steven DeLoge, appeals the district court’s decision affirming the conclusion of 
the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that the appellant’s injuries were 
the result of illegal activity and were therefore not compensable under the 
Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act.  
We affirm.
 
ISSUE
 
[¶2]      Were the 
appellant’s injuries the result of “illegal activity” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(E) (LexisNexis 2011), therefore precluding the appellant from 
recovering workers’ compensation benefits?
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      The parties 
stipulated to the following facts: The appellant, an inmate in the Wyoming State 
Penitentiary, was working in the kitchen at the time of his injury.  He and another inmate, Scott Bronson, 
began arguing verbally and the appellant was injured when Bronson struck the 
appellant in the face with his head.  
The appellant did not touch or assault Bronson in the course of this 
exchange.  After the incident, 
Bronson was interviewed.  The 
relevant portions of that interview are as follows:
 
During 
his interview, Bronson advised that [the appellant] told the Kitchen Supervisor 
that one of the inmates did not properly clean the bread slicing machine.  According to Bronson, he went to the 
special diet area, where [the appellant] worked, to talk to him about it.  Bronson said he told [the appellant] 
that it wasn’t right for him to talk to the supervisor, but instead he should 
have gone to one of the inmates, after which [the appellant] said that he didn’t 
know what he was talking about.  
Bronson stated that [the appellant] told him to “Get the [expletive] out 
of here.”  Bronson went on to say 
that they exchanged a few more words, and then he turned to leave when [the 
appellant] said, “and stay the [expletive] over there.”  Bronson turned back around and responded 
by saying to [the appellant] essentially, “Why don’t you make me stay out of 
here.”  By 
this point they were in each others [sic] faces and he told [the appellant] to get 
out of his face.  Bronson stated, 
“he didn’t, so I head-butted him.”  
Bronson continued by saying that he didn’t mean to break [the 
appellant’s] nose, but only meant to get him out of his 
face.
 
(Emphasis 
added.)  Although subjected to 
inmate disciplinary proceedings, Bronson was not charged criminally.  
 
[¶4]      The appellant 
filed a workers’ compensation claim based on injuries sustained in the 
altercation.  Citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 27-14-102(a)(xi)(E), the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division 
(Division) denied the claim on the ground that his injuries were the result of 
illegal activities.  After a hearing 
requested by the appellant, the OAH found that the appellant’s injuries were 
“the result of an intentional head-butt which is clearly a violation of Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 6-2-501(b) [(LexisNexis 2007)]” and denied workers’ compensation 
benefits by granting the Division’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  The district court concluded that the 
OAH did not err in denying the appellant benefits.  The appellant appeals that 
decision.
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶5]      No special 
deference is given to the district court’s decision; this Court reviews the case 
as if it had come directly from the OAH.  
Dale v. S & S Builders, 
LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 554, 557 (Wyo. 2008).  A grant of summary judgment is reviewed 
de novo using the same standards 
employed by the administrative agency.  
Id. at ¶ 26, at 
562.
 
The 
judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, 
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 
affidavits, if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 
law.
 
W.R.C.P. 
56(c).  The record is reviewed in 
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, here the 
appellant.  Cathcart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 
Co., 2005 WY 154, ¶ 11, 123 P.3d 579, 586 (Wyo. 2005).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶6]      The appellant 
argues that no illegal activity took place in the encounter between Bronson and 
himself, and therefore his injury is not excluded from workers’ compensation 
coverage by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xi)(E).  This statute operates to deny 
compensability for injuries “sustained by the prisoner during or any harm 
resulting from any illegal activity engaged in by prisoners held under 
custody.”  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(xi)(E).  According to 
the appellant, the facts surrounding the incident suggest nothing more than that 
Bronson’s head happened to make contact with the appellant’s face in the course 
of an argument and that there is no evidence that Bronson actually intended to 
touch the appellant.  He claims 
that, “[a]t no time did inmate Bronson clarify whether or not the bump of heads 
occurred due to an intentional act of his own volition, an accident, or a sudden 
geologic shift in the surface of the earth which caused his head to contact [the 
appellant’s].”
 
[¶7]      The appellant’s 
argument disregards the language of the pertinent statute and the facts as 
stipulated.  The appellant’s 
entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits depends on whether his injury 
arose from illegal activity.  At the 
time of the incident, criminal battery was defined as 
follows:
 
(b)       A person is 
guilty of battery if he unlawfully touches another in a rude, insolent or angry 
manner or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to 
another.
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 6-2-501(b) (LexisNexis 2007)1.  We need not consider whether Bronson 
“intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[d] bodily injury to” the 
appellant, because the stipulated facts clearly show that Bronson “unlawfully 
touche[d] [the appellant] in a rude, insolent or angry manner.”  During an argument, Bronson head-butted 
the appellant “to get him out of [my] face.”  Bronson’s admission of his intent leaves 
little room for speculation as to the possible involvement of tectonic plate 
activity.  This appeal borders on 
the frivolous.
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶8]      The appellant was 
injured in the course of an argument that ended with a fellow inmate 
head-butting him, causing injuries to his nose and neck.  Because this head-butt was a battery 
under the criminal statute then existing, and therefore an illegal activity, the 
appellant is not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.  We affirm.
 
FOOTNOTES
 
1The 
incident between the appellant and Mr. Bronson occurred before this statute was 
amended in 2009, and the analysis in this opinion may not necessarily apply 
under the present version of the statute.