Title: JONES v. STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JONES v. STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH2001 WY 2818 P.3d 1189Case Number: 00-2Decided: 03/09/2001
 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2000

                                                                                                        
March 9, 2001  

 

            
E. KEITH JONES, Minor, by and through               

his 
Guardians and Next Friends,

Craig Jones 
and Jacque Jones,

Appellant

(Petitioner),

 

v.

STATE OF 
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH,

Appellee

(Respondent).

 

 

W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Park 
County

The 
Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge 

 Representing 
Appellant:

Marc C. 
Thompson of Webster & Thompson, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney 
General; Marci M. Hoff, Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. Hoff. 

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

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 [¶1]           
Keith 
Jones, a Wyoming school student, appeals from an administrative decision from 
the Wyoming Department of Health denying his request for a medical exemption 
from required immunizations.  
Finding that the Department of Health exceeded its statutory authority as 
found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-4-309(a) in not accepting the waiver request 
submitted on behalf of Keith Jones, we reverse.  

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]           
Keith 
Jones and his parents state the issues as:

 

            
I.  Was the Department of Health's final decision denying the 
Appellant's requested immunization waiver supported by substantial 
evidence?

 

            
II.  Did the Department of Health's action violate state law 
and administrative procedure?

 

            
III.  Did the Department of Health act in an arbitrary and 
capricious fashion when it denied the Appellant's requested medical exemption to 
the immunization requirement?

 

            
IV.  Did the Department of Health act contrary to Keith Jones' 
Wyoming constitutional right to receive an education?

 

The 
Department of Health suggests only three issues:

 

            
I.  Was the Department of Health's final decision to deny the 
Appellant's request for a medical exemption supported by substantial 
evidence?

 

            
II.  Was the Department of Health's denial of the Jones' 
request in accordance with state law and administrative 
procedure?

 

III. Is 
the State of Wyoming's [statute governing] compulsory immunizations for school 
attendance constitutional?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
The 
basic facts pertinent to this appeal are not in dispute.  Keith Jones is a middle school student 
in Wyoming.  As such, he is subject 
to certain immunization requirements as a prerequisite to attending school.  In the fall of 1998, the Joneses 
requested a waiver from the state immunization requirements for Keith on the 
grounds of a medical contraindication.  
The Department of Health supplied a form to be filled out by the Joneses 
and Keith's physician to formally request the waiver.  The Joneses and Dr. Rebecca Painter 
completed the Department's form in its entirety.  Dr. Painter marked all immunizations as 
medically contraindicated for Keith.  
The form requested a reason for the medical contraindication.  Dr. Painter responded "[h]istory of 
reactions to immunizations."  Dr. 
Painter signed the section of the form requesting the medical waiver. 

 

[¶4]           
The 
Department of Health reviewed the waiver request.  Among the documents the Department 
reviewed were the waiver form and also an official record of immunizations Keith 
had already received.  The 
immunization record reflected that Keith had received a series of 
immunizations.  He had received five 
DTP vaccinations, five polio vaccinations, one MMR vaccination and one HIB 
vaccination.  There was no 
indication that Keith had ever been immunized against Hepatitis B.  There is a box on the immunization 
record with the title "Allergies/Reactions."  The only notation in that box was "NKA" 
or "no known allergies."  

 

[¶5]           
After 
receipt of the waiver form and official immunization record, the Department 
contacted Keith's parents and requested further information regarding the exact 
nature of the medical contraindication.   The Department stated that it does 
not accept blanket requests for exemptions.  The Department requested specific 
information supporting the allegation of a history of adverse reactions to 
specific vaccines.  The Department 
suggested that Dr. Painter review a publication on contraindications produced by 
the Center for Disease Control and respond more specifically to the Department's 
request for a reason for the contraindication to each vaccine.  Dr. Painter responded with a letter 
stating that she reviewed a publication on known contraindications and still 
believes that all immunizations are contraindicated for Keith.  Dr. Painter gave no more details other 
than that Keith had a history of adverse reactions to immunizations which 
"caused him a great deal of distress" and that "[i]n my complete evaluation of 
Keith, I have determined that he will again experience adverse reactions to the 
immunizations he is currently required to receive by the Department of Health." 

 

[¶6]           
Ultimately, 
the Department denied Keith's waiver request.  The Department based its denial on the 
fact that the Joneses failed to produce Keith's "medical history to document the 
diagnosis of a contraindication to vaccinations."  The Joneses appealed the administrative 
decision, and an administrative hearing was held.  The final decision from the 
administrative hearing upheld the Department's denial of the waiver.  The final decision specifically found 
that the Joneses had "failed to establish a medically recognized 
contraindication to immunizations."  
The Joneses appealed the administrative hearing decision to district 
court, and the district court certified the appeal to this Court pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Standard 
of Review

 

[¶7]           
Our 
standard for reviewing agency actions is well settled and defined by 
statute.  

 

On review of petitions for judicial 
review certified to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09, we invoke the same 
standard of review applicable to the district courts.  Union Telephone Co., Inc. v. Wyoming 
Public Service Comm'n, 907 P.2d 340, 341-42 (Wyo. 1995).  That standard is established by Wyo. 
Stat.  Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (Lexis 
1999), which provides 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;

            
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;

            
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or 
lacking statutory right;

            
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; 
or

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

                        
. . .

 

 We affirm an agency's conclusions of law 
only if they are in accord with the law.  
Matter of Corman, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996). Any 
error an agency makes in its interpretation or application of the law will be 
corrected by the reviewing court.  
Matter of Gneiting, 897 P.2d 1306, 1308 (Wyo. 
1995).

            

Fisch v. 
Allsop, 4 P.3d 204, 206-07 (Wyo. 2000).

 

[¶8]           
Initially, 
it should be noted that this dispute revolves solely around the requirement that 
Keith receive a Hepatitis B immunization or not be allowed to attend 
school.  At the time Keith requested 
his waiver, the Department of Health did not have any rule that required a 
Hepatitis B immunization.  Indeed, 
the very waiver form supplied by the Department listed the Hepatitis B 
immunization as optional.  
Department rules then in place had a schedule of required immunizations, 
and Hepatitis B was not listed in the rules as one of the required 
immunizations.  Wyoming Dep't of 
Health Immunization Regulations, Ch. 1, § 7(b) (Jan. 13, 1992).  The Department, therefore, had no 
authority to require Keith to receive the Hepatitis B immunization.  This fact alone requires reversal of the 
Department's actions in this case.

 

[¶9]           
We could 
end our analysis here.  However, the 
Department has since promulgated new rules regarding immunizations for school 
age children that do require an immunization against Hepatitis B. Wyoming Dep't 
of Health Rules and Regulations for School Immunization, Ch. 1, Sec. 9 (Jan. 5, 
2001).  Thus, Keith will face this 
same situation again.  Where a 
question is likely to arise again, we have said: "If we should not now decide 
it, it is bound to arise again, and would, it would seem, require another 
appeal.  In such a case it is our 
right, if it is not our duty, to decide the question."  Chicago & N.W. Railway Co. v. 
City of Riverton, Fremont County, 70 Wyo. 84, 127, 247 P.2d 660, 663 (1952); 
see also Farmer Ins. Exchange v. Shirley, 958 P.2d 1040, 1049 
(Wyo. 1998)).  We therefore proceed 
to look further into the issues.

 

[¶10]       
Ultimately, 
the parties' disagreement surrounds the language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
21-4-309(a) (LEXIS 1999), which states in pertinent part: 

 

Any person attending, full or part 
time, any public or private school, kindergarten through twelfth grade, shall 
within thirty (30) days after the date of school entry, provide to the 
appropriate school official written documentary proof of immunization. . . 
.  Waivers shall be authorized by 
the state or county health officer upon submission of written evidence of 
religious objection or medical contraindication to the administration of any 
vaccine.

 

The 
Joneses argue that the statute requires only that a writing be produced which 
indicates that immunization is medically contraindicated.  The Department of Health argues that the 
statute requires more than a simple statement that immunization is medically 
contraindicated.  The Department 
argues that the statute requires the party requesting a waiver to present a 
specific, medically accepted contraindication to each specific vaccine before a 
waiver can be granted.  Indeed, the 
Department now has promulgated its rules to clarify the requirement for such 
specific information.1

[¶11]       
"Statutory 
interpretation is a question of law, so our standard of review is de 
novo.  If the conclusion of law 
is in accordance with the law, we affirm it; if it is not, we correct it."  May v. May, 945 P.2d 1189, 1191 
(Wyo. 1997) (citations omitted).  
The first step in analyzing the statute is to determine if an ambiguity 
exists.  

 

We 
decide initially whether the statute is clear or ambiguous.  This Court makes that determination as a 
matter of law.  If we determine that 
a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the 
statute.  In effectuating the plain 
language of the statute, we begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary 
and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and 
connection.  We construe the statute 
as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe 
together all parts of the statute in pari materia.  If, on the other hand, we determine that 
the statute is ambiguous, we resort to general principles of statutory 
construction to determine the legislature's intent.  

 

Wyoming 
Dep't of Transportation v. Haglund, 982 P.2d 699, 701 (Wyo. 1999) (citations and quotations 
omitted).

 

[¶12]       
This 
Court recently analyzed Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-4-309(a) in regard to a request for 
a religious exemption to immunizations in LePage v. State of Wyo., Department 
of Health, 2001 WY 26, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2001).  Much of the analysis in LePage is 
equally applicable to this case.  
The language of the statute is unambiguous.  As stated in LePage, the language 
of § 21-4-309(a) is mandatory.  
Id. at ¶11.  In this 
case, giving the terms used in the statute their ordinary and obvious meaning, 
we find the statute clearly requires a waiver to be issued upon receipt of 
written evidence of a medical contraindication to the administration of any 
vaccine.  The letter from Dr. 
Painter and the waiver form supplied by the Department and completed by the 
Joneses and Dr. Painter both qualify as writings which evidence a medical 
contraindication to the administration of the delineated vaccines.  The statute does not require any reason 
be given for a medical contraindication.  
The statute is clear on its face. "The statute is not ambiguous and, 
therefore, we can indulge in no statutory-interpretation exercises.  The plain English, understandable 
language of the statute speaks for itself and, therefore, settles the 
question."  Claim of 
McCarley, 590 P.2d 1333, 1338 (Wyo. 1979).

 

[¶13]       
We 
understand the concerns of the Department.  
Protecting the health of all students is of utmost importance.  However, we are without authority to 
rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation.  The interpretation advanced by the 
Department of Health requires us to read qualifications into the statute that 
simply do not exist.  We must abide 
by our well-settled rules of statutory interpretation.  "Where the language of a statute is 
plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no 
occasion for resorting to rules of statutory interpretation; and the court has 
no right to look for or impose another meaning."  Druley v. Houdesheldt, 75 Wyo. 
155, 160-61, 294 P.2d 351, 352 (Wyo. 1956).  We are not at liberty to usurp the 
authority of the legislature and rewrite a statute or impose any other meaning 
on a statute beyond its unambiguous terms.  
The statute, by its clear and unambiguous terms, requires a waiver be 
authorized upon the presentation of any writing evidencing a medical 
contraindication to immunization.  
Nothing further is required.

 

[¶14]       
Even if 
we were to look further into the statute, we do not believe that the legislature 
necessarily intended to authorize the Department of Health to interrogate 
students regarding specifics of their medical condition.  Such interrogation brings up concerns 
regarding invasion into the right of privacy and intrusion into the 
physician-patient relationship.  
Further, the legislature has provided for any student who has not been 
immunized to be excluded from school in the event of an outbreak of any vaccine 
preventable disease, thus providing a protection for all students.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-4-309(a) 
(LEXIS 1999).  Reading the statute 
in pari materia, we believe the legislature has expressed a balance 
between protecting individual rights and protecting the public interest and see 
no reason to provide further conditions to the authorization of a waiver under 
the guise of statutory interpretation.  
We will not invade the province of the legislature.  

 

[¶15]       
Neither 
may the Department of Health force its own interpretation on statutes that are 
clear on their face.  Certainly, the 
Department of Health is endowed with the power to promulgate rules and 
regulations regarding immunizations.  
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-4-101 (LEXIS 1999).  However, the Department may not exceed 
its statutory authority.  

 

The 
construction of a statute by those charged with its execution is entitled to 
consideration in construing the statute, State ex rel. Goshen Irr. Dist. v. 
Hunt, 49 Wyo. 497, 57 P.2d 793 (1936). . . . [However,] its construction 
should be disregarded if it is clearly erroneous, Florida Citrus Exchange v. 
Folsom, 246 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1957); Jno. McCall Coal Company v. United 
States,  374 F.2d 689 (4th Cir. 
1967); State ex rel. Goshen Irr. Dist. v. Hunt, supra; Raggio v. 
Campbell, 80 Nev. 418, 395 P.2d 625 (1964).  Where, as here, the language of the 
statute is unambiguous, there is no room for construction, International 
Harvester Co. of America v. Jackson Lumber Co., 25 Wyo. 367, 170 P. 6 
(1918). . . .

 

Demos v. 
Board of County Comm'rs of Natrona County, 571 P.2d 980, 981 (Wyo. 1977).  Here, 
the statute simply does not allow the Department to promulgate rules requiring 
that a reason be given for a medical contraindication.  To the extent any Department rule or 
regulation requires more than simply written evidence of a medical 
contraindication, it violates Wyoming statute and is void.

 

[¶16]       
Given 
our holding on the interpretation of the statute, other issues need not be 
addressed.  The Department of Health 
exceeded statutory authority in requiring a specific reason for a medical 
contraindication before issuing a waiver.  
Keith Jones and his parents presented written evidence of a medical 
contraindication to all further immunizations.  A waiver should have been granted.  The final decision of the Department of 
Health is hereby reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1Wyoming Dep't of Health Rules and 
Regulations for School Immunization, Ch. 1, Sec. 3(c) (Jan. 5, 2001), 
states:  

A pupil shall not be required to have 
any immunizations which are medically contraindicated.  The State Health Officer or County 
Health Officer shall grant a medical exemption from the specific immunization 
requirement in these regulations upon receiving evidence from any physician 
licensed to practice medicine in any jurisdiction of the United States that the 
administration of the specific immunization is medically contraindicated to the 
pupil.  This evidence shall consist 
of a recognizable medical contraindication pursuant to ACIP, IDSA and AAP 
practices and shall list the specified time and reasons for the medical 
contraindication.  The exemption 
shall be maintained by the school as part of the immunization record of the 
pupil.