Title: TORRES v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

TORRES v. WYOMING WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION2004 WY 9295 P.3d 794Case Number: 03-152Decided: 08/12/2004
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S

COMPENSATION 
CLAIM OF:

 

ABEL 
TORRES,

 

Appellant(Employee/Claimant),

 

v.

 

STATE 
OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING

WORKERS' 
SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

DIVISION,

 

Appellee(Objector/Defendant).

 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

 

            
Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.

 

Representing 
Appellee:

 

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney 
General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Michael S. 
Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 

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

 

 

            
VOIGT, Justice.

 

[¶1]      An injured worker 
was denied worker's compensation benefits because he was not "authorized to work 
by the United States department of justice," as required by state statute.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) 
(LexisNexis 2001).  The district 
court affirmed the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division's (the 
Division) denial of benefits and the worker appealed.  We dismiss the appeal because the 
constitutionality of a statute may not be raised in the direct appeal of an 
administrative agency decision.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The issues 
presented by the parties are as follows:

 

            
1.  May the appellant 
challenge the constitutionality of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii) in an 
appeal of an administrative agency action?

 

            
2.  Does Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(vii) violate the equal protection guarantees of the Wyoming 
Constitution?

 

            
3.  Does Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(vii) violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution?

 

            
4.  Does Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-102(a)(vii) violate the supremacy clause of the United States 
Constitution?

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      While employed by 
Sims Industrial Services as a semi-skilled laborer, Abel Torres (the appellant) 
suffered a work-related injury.  The 
Division determined the injury to be compensable and approved temporary total 
disability payments.  Subsequently, 
however, payments were discontinued when the Division learned that the social 
security number given by the appellant did not "match" his name and that he was 
not authorized to work in the United States.1  That determination was upheld after a 
hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings.  The hearing examiner concluded that the 
appellant was not an employee as defined by Wyoming statute, but reserved ruling 
on the constitutional issues raised by the appellant.

 

[¶4]      The appellant 
filed a petition for review in the district court in which he challenged the 
constitutionality of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(vii), which 
states:

 

"Employee" 
means any person engaged in any extrahazardous employment under any appointment, 
contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, and 
includes legally employed minors and aliens authorized to work by the 
United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization 
service.

 

(Emphasis 
added.)  The district court affirmed 
the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings "for the reasons set forth 
in the Respondent's Brief."  
Unfortunately, the Respondent's Brief is not contained in the record 
before this Court, leaving us to speculate as to what reasons were set forth 
therein.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶5]      The hearing 
examiner reached two conclusions that formed the gist of his decision.  First, citing V-1 Oil Co. v. State, 
934 P.2d 740, 743 (Wyo. 1997), 
the hearing examiner concluded that his office did not have the authority to 
rule on matters of constitutional law.  
Second, he concluded that the appellant was not an "employee" for 
purposes of the worker's compensation statutes.  We presume these conclusions are what 
the district court affirmed.

 

[¶6]      We will dismiss 
this appeal because neither the district court nor this Court has the authority 
in an administrative agency appeal to address a petition for review regarding 
the constitutionality of a statute.  
Rather, the correct course is an independent action for declaratory 
judgment.2  In re Conflicting Lease Application 
for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-7027, 972 P.2d 586, 586-88 (Wyo. 
1999).  See also Frankel v. Board of County 
Com'rs of Teton County, Wyoming, 2002 WY 13, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 420, 423 (Wyo. 
2002); 
Disciplinary Matter of Billings, 2001 WY 81, ¶ 41, 30 P.3d 557, 572 (Wyo. 
2001); 
Dorr v. Wyoming Bd. of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 37, ¶ 13, 21 P.3d 735, 742 (Wyo. 2001); 
In re Worker's Compensation Claim of Shryack, 3 P.3d 850, 856 (Wyo. 
2000); 
and In re Worker's Compensation Claim of Keck, 985 P.2d 430, 433 (Wyo. 
1999).

 

[¶7]      The appellant 
cites several Wyoming cases in which this Court considered, in an appeal of 
administrative agency action, the constitutionality of a statute.  We note, however, that those cases 
either preceded our clear holding to the contrary in In re Conflicting Lease 
Application for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-7027, or the question of whether 
the constitutional issue was appropriate was not directly raised, or both.  At any rate, to the extent that the 
following cases may be read as being inconsistent with the rule espoused in the 
present case, they are overruled:  
In re Wright, 983 P.2d 1227, 1232 (Wyo. 1999); 
In re Pohl, 980 P.2d 816, 819 (Wyo. 1999); 
Gonzales v. Grass Valley Mobile Home Park, 933 P.2d 484, 487-88 (Wyo. 
1997); 
Frantz v. Campbell County Memorial Hosp., 932 P.2d 750, 752-54 (Wyo. 
1997); 
Hays v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 768 P.2d 11, 
15-16 (Wyo. 1989); 
Paravecchio v. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County, 742 P.2d 1276, 1282-83 
(Wyo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 915 (1988); 
Baskin v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 722 P.2d 151, 155-56 
(Wyo. 1986); 
Armed Forces Co-op. Insuring Ass'n v. Department of Ins., 622 P.2d 1318, 
1332-33 (Wyo. 1980); 
Belco Petroleum Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 587 P.2d 204, 214 
(Wyo. 1978).3

 

[¶8]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114 (LexisNexis 2003) defines the limits of judicial review of 
administrative agency action.  
Johnson v. Schrader, 507 P.2d 814, 817 (Wyo. 1973).  W.R.A.P. 12 does not modify or repeal 
the statute, but implements it by adopting procedures for such judicial 
review.  Bruegman v. Johnson 
Ranches, Inc., 520 P.2d 489, 491 (Wyo. 1974); Johnson, 507 P.2d  at 
817.  Administrative agencies have 
no authority to determine the constitutionality of a statute, and thus, on 
appeal of agency action, neither the district court nor this Court has 
jurisdiction to consider the issue.  
However, the right to pursue the constitutionality of the statute under 
which the agency acts is preserved in W.R.A.P. 12.12 via the declaratory 
judgment action.  In re 
Conflicting Lease Application for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-7027, 972 P.2d  at 
587.

 

[¶9]      Appeal 
dismissed.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1The 
appellant has admitted that he is an "illegal alien" and that he was using a 
"false" social security number.

 

2See 
W.R.A.P. 
12.12, which states:

 

The 
relief, review, or redress available in suits for injunction against agency 
action or enforcement, in actions for recovery of money, in actions for a 
declaratory judgment based on agency action or inaction, in actions seeking any 
common law writ to compel, review or restrain agency action shall be available 
by independent action notwithstanding any petition for 
review.

 

3We 
further note that In re Wright, 983 P.2d  at 1232, and In re Pohl, 
980 P.2d  at 819, the only two listed cases that were decided after In re 
Conflicting Lease Application for Wyoming Agr. Lease No. 1-7027, are also 
distinguishable in that Wright involved an attempt to avoid waiver by 
transforming a procedural objection into a constitutional issue, and Pohl 
involved a question of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than the 
constitutionality of the statute underlying agency 
action.