Title: Painter v. Spurrier

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Painter v. Spurrier1998 WY 151969 P.2d 548Case Number: 97-141Decided: 12/10/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
Donald L. PAINTER, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

Kenneth E. SPURRIER, 
Hearing Examiner, Internal Hearing Unit, Workers' Safety and Compensation 
Division, State of Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

Donald L. 
Painter, pro se Appellant.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and 
Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney General, for 
Appellee.

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

* Chief Justice at time of 
expedited case conference; retired November 2, 1998.

LEHMAN, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Attorney Donald 
Painter appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of 
mandamus to compel a hearing on his claim for attorney fees from the Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Division. We affirm.

[¶2]      Appellant Painter 
presents the following issue for our review:

1. Whether 
Appellant is an "interested party" as that phrase appears in Section 
27-14-601(k)(iv) W.S. 1977.

The Division 
states the issues as follows:

A. The Appellant 
never served the Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the Appellee, and he had an 
adequate remedy at law. Should the Court dismiss for lack of 
jurisdiction?

B. The Appellant 
cited no statutory authority for a hearing on his attorney fee application. Was 
the denial of mandamus an abuse of discretion?

C. The Appellant 
has disregarded the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. Should the court 
summarily affirm?

FACTS

[¶3]      Painter filed a 
Petition for Writ of Mandamus on February 12, 1997, against Kenneth E. Spurrier, 
a hearing examiner with the Internal Hearing Unit of the Division,1 seeking to compel Spurrier to refer 
a claim for a hearing. In the petition, Painter alleged that on November 22, 
1996, he made a claim for attorney fees incurred in the representation of 
William D. Herbold in a worker's compensation matter. He further alleged that 
the only response he received was a letter from Spurrier dated January 21, 1997, 
and that Spurrier did not issue a final determination regarding Painter's claim 
for attorney fees within sixty days, as is required by W.S. 27-14-601(k)(iv) 
(1997). Painter stated in the petition that Spurrier had a legal duty under W.S. 
27-14-601(k)(iv) to refer the claim for attorney fees for a hearing before a 
hearing examiner, which required no judicial or administrative 
discretion.

[¶4]      The district 
court, by letter to Painter dated February 18, 1997, requested additional 
information. Specifically, the court indicated that it did not receive a copy of 
the January 21, 1997 letter from Spurrier, and requested a copy of the order 
appointing Painter as attorney. Further, the court asked Painter to specify that 
portion of the statute creating a legal duty in Spurrier to refer Painter's 
claim for attorney fees for a hearing before a hearing examiner. The requested 
information is not included in the transmitted record, and we have no indication 
that it was provided to the court.

[¶5]      On March 10, 
1997, the court entered an order denying mandamus. The court found that an 
attorney seeking an award of attorney fees is not an interested party within the 
provisions of W.S. 27-14-601(k)(iv) and that attorney fees cannot be awarded 
where there was never an order appointing the attorney. Painter appeals the 
district court's order.

DISCUSSION

[¶6]      The mandamus 
action was filed in this case to compel agency action. "Mandamus is not proper 
if an adequate remedy at law exists and cannot substitute for an appeal." Harris 
v. Schuetz, 948 P.2d 907, 908 (Wyo. 1997); W.S. 1-30-104 (1997). The Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act expressly provides that "any person aggrieved or 
adversely affected in fact by * * * agency action or inaction * * * is entitled 
to judicial review in the district court." W.S. 16-3-114(a) (1997). In Harris, 
we determined that Division inaction on a request for hearing is deemed a denial 
of the request after a reasonable amount of time has passed. Harris, 948 P.2d  at 
908. Absent an express provision in the statutes or rules instructing how a 
claimant is to proceed, the appropriate remedy at that point is to file a 
petition for review of the Division's failure to act on the request. Id. Because 
Painter had an adequate remedy at law, an action for mandamus was improper; 
therefore, we affirm the district court's order.

[¶7]      In the course of 
bringing this appeal, Painter violated several rules of appellate procedure. 
Painter designated the entire court file to be transmitted on appeal and did not 
serve a copy of the designation on appellee. See W.R.A.P. 3.05(e), (b). The 
statement of facts contains no reference to the record and merely incorporates 
the facts stated in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the court file. See 
W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2). In his brief, Painter referred to items appended thereto, 
which were not properly made part of the transmitted record on appeal. See 
generally W.R.A.P. 7.01(f), (j), 3.01, 3.03, 3.05. Finally, Painter offers no 
cogent argument or pertinent legal authority in support of his position. See 
W.R.A.P. 7.01(f). Accordingly, we assess against him the Division's costs of 
preparing for this appeal pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03.

Footnotes

1 The 
Internal Hearing Unit was created by the Division to resolve contested matters 
which are not required to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings or 
the Medical Commission.