Title: DOROTHY RODRIGUEZ V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DOROTHY RODRIGUEZ V. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2006 WY 146146 P.3d 487Case Number: 06-46Decided: 11/13/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
DOROTHY 
RODRIGUEZ,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

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

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The Honorable Peter G. 
Arnold, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

Guy P. Cleveland, of Cleveland Law Office, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. 
Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General; Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

            

Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Dorothy Rodriguez 
challenges the denial of her claim for worker's compensation benefits.  She appealed the denial to the district 
court claiming the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") "acted arbitrarily, 
capriciously, abused its discretion, or otherwise [acted] not in accordance with 
law within the meaning of W.S. § 16-3-114(c)."  Ms. Rodriguez also claimed the OAH's 
determination that she failed to meet her burden of proof was not supported by 
substantial evidence.  The district 
court affirmed the denial of benefits.

 
 
[¶2]      In response, the 
State of Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division ("Division") 
raises a preliminary issue concerning Ms. Rodriguez's failure to comply with the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.  
The Division identifies the following violations:

 
 

A.                 
Ms. Rodriguez failed to 
file a designation of record contemporaneously with filing her brief in 
violation of W.R.A.P. 3.05(b).

 
 

B.                 
Ms. Rodriguez's brief 
failed to comply, in multiple respects, with the requirements of W.R.A.P. 
7.01.

 
 

1.                  
A statement of the facts 
is presented, however, the appropriate references to documents listed in the 
index of the transmitted record is not present, as required by W.R.A.P. 
7.01(e)(2).

 
 

2.                  
Ms. Rodriguez fails to 
support her contentions with citations to authorities, statutes and parts of the 
record relied on, as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(f)(1).

 
 

3.                  
The argument does not set 
forth a concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue, 
as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(f)(2).

 
 

4.                  
The conclusion fails to 
state the precise relief sought, as required by W.R.A.P. 
7.01(g).

 
 
5.         
The title page does not contain the appropriate caption as required by 
W.R.A.P. 7.01(a)(1).  

 
 
In light of these alleged 
violations, the Division asks this Court to exercise its discretion under 
W.R.A.P. 1.03 and either refuse to consider Ms. Rodriguez's contentions, dismiss 
the appeal, or summarily affirm the decision of the OAH.   

 
 
[¶3]      Upon our review, 
we agree that Ms. Rodriguez has failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of 
Appellate Procedure as identified by the Division.  Additionally, we note that Ms. Rodriguez 
has also failed to comply with other provisions of the appellate rules.  See, e.g., W.R.A.P. 7.01(c) (table of 
authorities not listed alphabetically and omits page references); W.R.A.P. 
7.05(b)(3) (inappropriate type font); and W.R.A.P. 7.01(j) (appendix shall 
contain a statement of costs).  

 
 
[¶4]      A party seeking 
judicial review of an administrative action must comply with the Wyoming Rules 
of Appellate Procedure.  See, e.g., Nathan v. American Global 
University, 2005 WY 64, ¶ 4, 113 P.3d 32, 33 (Wyo. 2005) (citing W.R.A.P. 
1.02 and 12.11).  When a party fails 
to do so, we may refuse to consider the offending party's contentions; assess 
costs; dismiss the appeal; or affirm the lower court's or agency's 
decision.  W.R.A.P. 1.03; Nathan, ¶ 4, 113 P.3d  at 33; Finch v. Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24, ¶ 3, 130 P.3d 437, 438 (Wyo. 2006).  

 
 
[¶5]      Ms. Rodriguez 
fails to provide any citation to the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act or a 
specific provision contained therein pertinent to the issues of her case.  She also fails to set forth the elements 
of her claim and does not cite to the record or provide relevant legal authority 
to support her contentions.  The 
cumulative deficiencies result in a failure to present cogent argument.  We therefore summarily affirm the 
decision of the OAH.