Title: Apodaca v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Apodaca v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.1999 WY 37977 P.2d 56Case Number: 97-148, 97-158Decided: 04/14/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF:

VINCE APODACA, Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY 
AND COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellee (Respondent).

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF 
VINCE APODACA:

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS' 
COMPENSATION DIVISION, Appellant

(Petitioner/Objector-Defendant),

v.

VINCE APODACA, Appellee 
(Respondent/Employee-Claimant).

  

Appeal from W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification 
from the District Court of Carbon County, The Honorable Kenneth E. Stebner, 
Judge.

 

Scott E. Kolpitcke of Cook 
and Associates, P. C., Laramie, WY.  
Argument by Mr. Kolpitcke representing Vince 
Apodaca.

 William U. Hill, Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Bernard P. Haggerty, Assistant Attorney 
General. Argument by Mr. Haggerty, representing State, ex rel. Worker's 
Compensation Division.

   

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

    * 
Chief Justice at time of oral argument; retired November 2, 
1998.

 

     LEHMAN, Chief 
Justice.

    
[¶1]     A hearing examiner granted Vince 
Apodaca's worker's compensation claim for loss of earnings benefits. The 
Worker's Compensation Division (Division) filed a petition for review, and the 
district court certified the case pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). The Division 
complains that Apodaca is not entitled to loss of earnings benefits because he 
is unable to work, not as a result of his back injury, but as a result of his 
incarceration in the state penitentiary. In a related matter, the hearing 
examiner stayed payment of Apodaca's award, without interest, pending the 
Division's appeal. Apodaca claims his loss of earnings award should be accruing 
interest pending the Division's appeal.

 

   [¶2]     We reverse and remand the loss of 
earnings award. This ruling renders Apodaca's interest claim 
moot.

 

                             
   ISSUES

 

   [¶3]     Petitioner, Division, presents one issue 
for review in Case No. 97-158:

 

A. Apodaca's incarceration prevents his return to 
work, and he has not searched for work outside prison. Was a loss of earnings 
award contrary to law and unsupported by substantial 
evidence?

 

   [¶4]     The injured respondent, Apodaca, 
rephrases the issue as:

 

I. The Office of Administrative Hearings' decision 
was not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion.

 

II. The Office of Administrative Hearings' decision 
was supported by substantial evidence.

 

   [¶5]     In consolidated Case No. 97-148, Apodaca 
challenges:

 

I. Whether the OAH acted arbitrarily and capriciously 
by failing to order post judgment interest during the pendency of the 
appeal?

 

   [¶6]     The Division 
iterates:

 

A. The Hearing Examiner stayed Apodaca's award 
pending appeal and denied his request for post-judgment interest. Did the 
Hearing Examiner lack authority to award post-judgment 
interest?

 

                                    
FACTS

 

   [¶7]     This appeal chronicles Vince Apodaca's 
latest journey through the Wyoming legal system. Apodaca injured his back at a 
construction site in November 1988, while on parole from a sentence for second 
degree murder. See Apodaca v. State, 571 P.2d 603 (Wyo. 1977). As a result of 
his injury, Apodaca received temporary total disability benefits along with 
medical benefits. While still on parole, Apodaca committed another offense and 
is currently incarcerated in the state penitentiary. See Apodaca v. State, 796 P.2d 806 (Wyo. 1990).

 

   [¶8]     Apodaca's back injury proved difficult 
to diagnose and treat, until Apodaca underwent back surgery in May of 1994. See 
Apodaca v. Ommen, 807 P.2d 939 (Wyo. 1991). Some time later, the Division 
concluded that Apodaca had obtained maximum medical improvement and terminated 
his temporary total disability benefits. The Division determined that Apodaca 
had a 10.5 percent whole body permanent partial disability rating and issued the 
appropriate benefit award. Apodaca accepted the award and has been paid those 
benefits.

 

   [¶9]     In an attempt to qualify for lost 
earnings benefits, Apodaca requested a vocational evaluation. Upon completion of 
this evaluation, the Division issued a Final Determination which denied 
benefits. The Division gave the following reasons for denying the 
benefits:

 

            The 
vocational evaluation indicates that you do have a vocational 
loss.

 

            The 
division will not make an offer at this time.

 

When you are released from prison and are able to 
actively seek employment the division will arrange for another vocational 
evaluation to determine if your employment situation and vocational loss 
remain             the 
same.

   

   [¶10]  Apodaca objected to the Division's 
determination, and a hearing was held by the Office of Administrative Hearings 
(OAH). Although Apodaca testified he is eligible for parole in 1998, he admitted 
that he really has no idea when he will be released. In addition, uncertainty 
exists concerning his release due to the consecutive nature of his sentences. 
See Apodaca v. State, 891 P.2d 83 (Wyo. 1995). In prison, Apodaca is employed as 
a light duty janitor and earns $95.00 per month. He also operates a fly tying 
business from the penitentiary, which has garnered him $200, $250, $75, and $50 
in various months. Some of this money is used to pay other prisoners to tie 
flies.

 

   [¶11]  The vocational evaluation indicated that 
jobs of the type Apodaca could perform were available in Laramie and Cheyenne at 
an average hourly rate of $5.53 per hour. At the time of his injury, Apodaca was 
earning $8.09 per hour. Relying on the vocational evaluation, the hearing 
examiner determined that Apodaca had a $2.56 per hour loss in earnings. After 
offsetting the earlier physical impairment award, the examiner granted Apodaca a 
21 percent loss of earnings award.

 

   [¶12]  The Division moved to stay payment of 
Apodaca's award pending appeal. During a hearing on this motion, Apodaca 
requested that the award be placed in an interest bearing account or that the 
award be adjusted to reflect interest. The hearing examiner granted the 
Division's motion to stay payment of the award and denied Apodaca's request for 
interest, finding that a hearing examiner "does not have the authority to impose 
such a condition."

 

   [¶13]  The Division filed a petition for review 
with the district court, and the district court certified the case to this court 
pursuant to W. R. A. P. 12.09(b). Apodaca appeals the denial of interest on his 
award pending appeal.

 

                          
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

   [¶14]  Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 
12.09(a) provides that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to 
a determination of the matters which are specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997), which mandates that the reviewing court 
shall:

 

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, 
findings and conclusions found to be:

 

(A) 
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with law;

 

         
               
* * *

 

(E) 
Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute.

 

   [¶15]  We afford respect and deference to a 
hearing examiner's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial 
evidence. Haagensen v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 949 P.2d 865, 
867 (Wyo. 1997). "Substantial evidence" is a term of art, best described as 
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support an 
agency's conclusion. Id. Unlike its findings of fact, however, an administrative 
agency's conclusions of law are afforded no special deference and will be 
affirmed only if truly in accord with the law. Id.

 

                              
DISCUSSION

 

   [¶16]  The question of whether a worker 
incarcerated subsequent to his compensable injury can claim loss of earnings 
benefits is an issue of first impression for this court.1 Apodaca bears the burden of 
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all essential elements of his 
claim. Matter of Workers' Compensation Claim of Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo. 
1996). Apodaca's claim, including the nature and amount of benefits, is governed 
by laws in effect at the time of his injury. Id. At the time of Apodaca's 
injury, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405 (Michie June 1987 Repl.), the source for an 
award for loss of earning capacity, provided in pertinent 
part:

   

(b) For any permanent partial disability described in 
this section, the employee shall receive for the number of months indicated a 
monthly payment as provided by W.S. 27-14-403(c), less any 
previous             awards for 
the same body part:

 

            * * 
*

 

(xvi) Any other injury resulting in permanent and 
complete loss of use and not enumerated in this subsection shall be rated as an 
impairment of the body as a whole. One (1) factor to be considered is the 
ability of the employee to continue to perform work for which he was reasonably 
suited by experience or training prior to the injury.

 

In order to recover a loss 
of earnings award, Apodaca must prove:  
(1) the extent of the injury; (2) the disability or loss of earning 
power; and (3) that he is entitled to the award sought.  Bohren v. State ex rel. Worker's 
Compensation Div., 883 P.2d 355, 358 (Wyo. 1994).

 

   [¶17]  Apodaca relies heavily on Matter of 
Injury to Spera, 713 P.2d 1155 (Wyo. 1986). In that case, the district court 
suspended Spera's temporary total disability (TTD) benefit payments for the 
period of his stay in county jail. On appeal, this court reversed the district 
court's suspension of benefits, holding that "temporary total disability 
payments may not be suspended under our statute simply because the worker is 
incarcerated." 713 P.2d  at 1158. However, Spera does not speak to the issue of 
loss of earnings benefits and is, thus, not controlling.

 

   [¶18]  The receipt of TTD benefits in Spera's 
case and loss of earnings benefits in Apodaca's case are inapposite. In 
Baskerville v. Saunders Oil Co., Inc., 336 S.E.2d 512 (Va. App. 1985), the Court 
of Appeals of Virginia upheld a hearing commissioner's decision that a worker 
who had suffered a temporary partial incapacity and was capable of selective 
employment was not entitled to loss of earnings benefits while incarcerated. In 
upholding the commissioner's decision, the Virginia court limited its decision 
to partial disability cases. The court wrote:

 

Common sense and logic demand a similar result. An 
employee is compensated for loss of earning power, which is not necessarily 
proportional to bodily functional disability. Foust Coal Co. v. Messer, 
195 Va. 762, 766, 80 S.E.2d 533, 535 
(1954). Loss of earning power due to temporary or permanent total 
disability would not be affected by incarceration.  Rather total disability is affected 
solely by bodily disability. In the case 
of temporary partial disability, however, incarceration would be the 
controlling factor in preventing the employee from participating in selective 
employment or rehabilitative services. Loss of earning power would not, 
therefore, necessarily derive from any physical 
disability.

 

We hold that, in the case of temporary partial 
incapacity, when a claimant's incarceration for a criminal act rather than his 
physical incapacity causes the claimant's loss of earning power, the 
employer is relieved from paying 
benefits during the period of incarceration.

 

Id. at 514-15 (emphasis in 
original). See also R.E. Dailey Co. v. Dorman, 509 So. 2d 377 (Fla.App. 1987) 
(incarcerated claimant not entitled to wage loss benefits; no showing that loss 
of income was caused by industrial accident).

 

   [¶19]  We find the reasoning of the Virginia 
court persuasive. By their nature, TTD benefits provide income for an employee 
during the time of healing from his injury and until his condition has 
stabilized. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div. v. Ohnstad, 802 P.2d 865, 
867 (Wyo. 1990); Pacific Power & Light v. Parsons, 692 P.2d 226, 228 (Wyo. 
1984). Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(xviii) (Michie June 1987 Repl.), 
"Temporary Total Disability" means that period of time an employee is 
temporarily and totally incapacitated from performing employment at any gainful 
employment. Thus, TTD benefits were appropriate in Spera because a worker 
receiving TTD benefits is considered unable to work regardless of his criminal 
actions. See also DeMars v. Roadway Express, Inc., 298 N.W.2d 645 (Mich.App. 
1980). Loss of earnings benefits, on the other hand, are premised on the 
worker's ability, at some level of functioning, to work.

   

   [¶20]  To find that Apodaca's inability to work 
is caused by his back injury would ignore the basis upon which a loss of 
earnings award is premised the ability to work at some reduced capacity. The 
evidence shows that Apodaca can work at a reduced capacity.  Indeed, Apodaca performs light duty 
janitorial work in prison.  However, the reality of Apodaca's situation is that 
his incarceration prevents him from accepting employment outside prison walls. 
Thus, even if one of the employers mentioned in the vocational evaluation wished 
to hire Apodaca, he would not be able to accept and earn that wage because of 
his incarceration.

 

   [¶21] Apodaca correctly asserts 
that the partial disability statute, as it existed at the time of his injury, 
does not require a work search. Cf. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-405(h)(iii) (Michie 
1997) (amended statute requires employee to actively search for suitable work). 
However, it is one thing to require an injured worker to actively seek 
employment and quite another to have the actual ability to do the work 
available. Because Apodaca is unable to do the work available due to his 
incarceration, he is not entitled to payment of loss of earnings 
benefits.

 

   [¶22]  Because Apodaca is not entitled to loss 
of earnings benefits, we need not consider Apodaca's claim that the hearing 
examiner erred by refusing to award interest pending this appeal. See Matter of 
Workers' Compensation Claim of Jacobs, 924 P.2d 982, 984 (Wyo. 1996) (reversing 
award and dismissing as moot cross-appeal seeking increased 
award).

 

                              
CONCLUSION

 

   [¶23]  Loss of earnings benefits is premised on 
the ability of the claimant to work at a reduced level of functioning. Apodaca 
is unable to join the work force due to his incarceration; therefore, the 
hearing examiner's award of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence 
and is, thus, not in accordance with the law.

 

   [¶24]  The order awarding benefits is reversed 
and remanded.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

1In 
Worker's Compensation Claim of Taylor, 890 P.2d 559 (Wyo. 1995), an Honor Farm 
inmate was awarded loss of earnings benefits. The inmate appealed his award, 
claiming he was entitled to greater loss of earnings benefits. The Division did 
not appeal the award. Thus, this issue has not been examined by this 
court.