Title: Matter of Worker's Compensation Claim of Howton

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Matter of Worker's Compensation Claim of Howton1995 WY 113899 P.2d 869Case Number: 94-208Decided: 07/20/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
Matter of the WORKER'S 
COMPENSATION CLAIM OF Douglas A. HOWTON, an Employee of Arrow Moving and 
Storage, Inc. Douglas A. HOWTON, 

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

The STATE of Wyoming, ex 
rel. WYOMING WORKER'S COMPENSATION DIVISION, 

Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from District 
Court, Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, J.

Donna D. 
Hoffdahl, Cheyenne, for appellant.

J.C. DeMers, Sp. 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

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

LEHMAN, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Douglas 
A. Howton appeals from a denial of his attempt to modify his worker's 
compensation award based on an alleged mistake in the calculation of that 
award.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Appellant raises 
three issues:

Issue 1

Was the Hearing 
Examiner's decision arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with 
the law[?]

a.         The 
Division's failure to abide by its own rules and regulations is per se arbitrary 
and capricious making the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny modification per 
se arbitrary and capricious.

b.         The 
Employee-Claimant was able to prove that a mistake had occurred making the 
Hearing Officer's decision arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in 
accordance with the law.

Issue 2

Whether there is 
sufficient evidence to conclude that there was no mistake in the calculation of 
the Claimant's loss of earning award.

Issue 3

Whether the Hearing 
Examiner's decision must be reversed when the Division does not observe 
procedures required by case law.

The Wyoming 
Worker's Compensation Division responds with two issues:

A.        Has the 
Appellant raised new issues for the first time in his brief that should be 
denied consideration?

B.        Is the 
Hearing Examiner's decision in denying the employee any increase in his previous 
permanent partial disability award of 73% to the body as a whole supported by 
substantial evidence?

FACTS

[¶4]      On April 6, 1993, 
appellant was given a 17 percent loss of earnings award, which was in addition 
to a previous loss of earnings award of 47 percent and an 8 percent award for 
permanent impairment of the whole body. Appellant accepted the money and did not 
appeal that award.

[¶5]      On June 15, 1993, 
appellant sent a letter requesting a modification of his award. Appellant 
alleged, pursuant to W.S. 27-14-605(a) (June 1991),1 that a mistake had been made in the 
calculation of the 17 percent award and that the agency failed to articulate, on 
the record, how that award was calculated. Using his own calculations, appellant 
attempted to prove at a hearing that he was entitled to a higher 
award.

[¶6]      The hearing 
officer denied the request for modification concluding that appellant had failed 
to carry his burden of proving that a mistake had occurred. The hearing officer 
subsequently denied appellant's Motion to Reconsider. Appellant then petitioned 
for judicial review, and the district court affirmed the hearing officer. 
Appellant timely appeals to this court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      In reviewing a 
district court's decision on appeal from a worker's compensation proceeding 
before a hearing officer, we give no special deference to the district court. 
Claim of Mitchell, 876 P.2d 984, 987 (Wyo. 1994). We will uphold an agency's 
findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Aanenson v. 
State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Wyo. 1992). We 
accord no deference to an agency's conclusions of law, however, and we will 
uphold those conclusions only if they are in accordance with law. Employment 
Sec. Comm'n v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866, 871 (Wyo. 
1990).

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      Appellant argues 
that the hearing officer erred in refusing to modify his award based on a 
mistake. The mistake, according to appellant, is the omission of any 
calculations or reasons for the 17 percent award. Furthermore, appellant claims 
that he introduced evidence which proves that he is entitled to a greater 
amount. Accordingly, appellant asks us to reverse the hearing officer's decision 
and allow modification of his award.

[¶9]      Modification of 
an award for worker's compensation is authorized by W.S. 27-14-605(a) (June 
1991):

If a determination is 
made in favor of or on behalf of an employee for any benefits under this act, 
an application may be made to the division by any party within 
four (4) years from the date of the last payment for additional medical and 
disability benefits or for a modification of the amount of 
benefits on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely 
to the injury, or upon grounds of mistake or fraud.

(Emphasis 
added.) We have previously addressed the purpose and meaning of this 
statute:

An award, being 
characterized as a judicial determination, is subject to the concept of 
finality. Given this proposition, [W.S. 27-14-605(a)], represents an attempt by 
the legislature to balance the concept of finality as applied to worker's 
compensation awards with the need to assure that injured workmen receive the 
full amount of any benefits to which they are entitled under the law. The 
grounds, however, for reopening are limited. * * *

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

Other jurisdictions 
having statutes which provide for the reopening of worker's compensation cases 
on the ground of mistake have limited relief under their statutes to those 
situations in which a mistake in the determination of a material fact has been 
made by a fact finder.

Conn v. Ed 
Wederski Const. Co., 668 P.2d 649, 653 (Wyo. 1983); see also State ex rel. 
Worker's Compensation Div. v. White, 837 P.2d 1095, 1099 (Wyo. 
1992).

[¶10]   Appellant's complaint is predicated 
upon the failure of the agency to explicate its reasons for reaching an award of 
17 percent. Such a failure is an abuse of discretion on the part of the agency. 
Holding's Little America v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 670 P.2d 699, 703-04 (Wyo. 
1983). The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to disclose by the 
evidence and the record the facts upon which its actions are based. Holding's, 
670 P.2d  at 704; Glenn v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 440 P.2d 1, 5 (Wyo. 1968). Thus 
an agency will be reversed if the reasons underlying the action are not 
disclosed, whether the final conclusion of the agency is correct or not because 
without such enunciation we cannot perform our legislatively mandated review. 
Id.

[¶11]   If appellant had made a direct 
appeal from the agency's decision, we would have been compelled to reverse. 
However, appellant accepted the benefits of that award; and, instead, appellant 
later sought modification of his award based on a mistake of material fact 
pursuant to W.S. 27-14-605(a). The failure of the Worker's Compensation Division 
to divulge the reasons behind its conclusion that appellant was entitled to a 17 
percent additional award was a procedural error, not one of fact. Such an error 
is not contemplated as grounds for modification under the statute. W.S. 
27-14-605(a) cannot be used to circumvent the doctrine of finality. Only errors 
relating to material facts, not agency procedure, may be challenged via a motion 
to modify under 605(a).

CONCLUSION

[¶12]   The balance between finality and 
providing a worker with his full entitlement of benefits tips in favor of 
finality in this case because the asserted error is one of procedure not of 
fact.

[¶13]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTE

1           
W.S. 27-14-605(a) was amended after this case began, effective July 1, 
1994. The amendments do not affect the disposition of this case.