Title: Olheiser v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Olheiser v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div.1994 WY 5866 P.2d 768Case Number: 93-113Decided: 01/12/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
 In the Matter of the 
Worker's Compensation Claim of Alice I. OLHEISER, surviving spouse of Louis S. 
Olheiser, deceased, Petitioner,

v.

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

Mark J. White and Jill E. 
Kucera, argued, of White & White, Riverton, for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., 
John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Kenneth E. Spurrier, Asst. Atty. Gen., 
argued, and Thomas C. Bancroft, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

CARDINE, Justice.

[¶1]      The district 
court has certified two questions for our consideration. They concern the 
interpretation of the statute of limitations for worker's compensation claims 
for injuries which occur over a substantial period of time. The questions 
are:

Does Wyoming Statute Section 27-14-503(b), 1991, 
provide that a Claimant may bring an action arising from an injury caused by 
ionizing radiation at any time after the last injury from ionizing radiation 
occurs?

Where a diagnosis of ionizing radiation injury has 
been communicated to an employee, does Wyoming Statute Section 27-14-503(b), 
1991, provide that a claim must be filed within one year of the date that the 
diagnosis was communicated to the employee?

We rephrase the second question to 
state:

Does the word "discovery" as it appears in W.S. 
27-14-503(b) mean when a claimant knew or had reason to know the injury was 
related to employment?

[¶2]      This question is 
implied in the second certified question and both parties addressed it in their 
briefs and in oral argument within the context of that question. The rephrased 
question more accurately reflects what the dispute in this case concerns. 
Therefore, in the interest of clarity, we answer the second question as we have 
modified it. Schneider Nat'l, Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co., 843 P.2d 561, 580 (Wyo. 
1992).

FACTS

[¶3]      Louis Olheiser 
(Mr. Olheiser) worked for Continental Uranium as an underground uranium miner 
from 1958 to 1968. From 1968 until his death, Mr. Olheiser was self employed, 
operating his own drilling company. In September of 1987 he was diagnosed with 
lung cancer. Treatment was unsuccessful; and on January 26, 1988, he died. 
Before he died, on November 28, 1987, Mr. Olheiser filed a report of injury with 
the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division (Division). The Division objected to 
the payment of any claims on February 11, 1988. Alice Olheiser (Mrs. Olheiser), 
the decedent's wife, received notice of the objection; but she did not respond 
to it.

[¶4]      Sometime in late 
1990, Mrs. Olheiser read an article about the Radon Exposure Act and realized 
that her husband's death may have been the result of ionizing radiation caused 
by his employment as a uranium miner. She consulted with an attorney; and on 
September 13, 1990, she filed a claim for death benefits with the 
Division.

[¶5]      A hearing officer 
heard the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. The hearing officer 
subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. He found that 
Mrs. Olheiser's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, W.S. 
27-14-503(b).

[¶6]      Mrs. Olheiser 
appealed that decision to the District Court for Fremont County. The district 
court judge found that this court had not previously interpreted W.S. 
27-14-503(b), and the questions were certified to us for 
review.

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

[¶7]      The certified 
questions require us to interpret the language of a statute. We have interpreted 
statutes on innumerable occasions, so our standard is well established. First, 
we determine if the statute is ambiguous by looking at the plain and ordinary 
meaning of the words contained therein. Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyo. 
Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042-43 (Wyo. 
1993).

A 
"statute is unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able 
to agree as to its meaning with consistence and predictability. * * * [A] 
statute is ambiguous only if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to 
varying interpretations. * * * [W]hether an ambiguity exists in a statute is a 
matter of law to be determined by the court."

Parker Land & Cattle Co. 
at 1043 (quoting Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 813 P.2d 214, 219-20 (Wyo. 1991)).

[¶8]  If we find the statute is ambiguous, we 
will resort to extrinsic aids, such as legislative history or intent. Id. at 
1044. Though this court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of a statute, we 
will give some deference to an interpretation of that statute by the agency 
charged with its execution unless its interpretation is clearly erroneous. 
General Chemical Corp. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 819 P.2d 418, 422 
(Wyo. 1991); State ex rel. Wyo. Worker's Compensation Div. v. Mahoney, 798 P.2d 836, 838 (Wyo. 1990).

[¶9]  We read a statute so that every word, 
clause and sentence is given effect so, if possible, no part of the statute is 
rendered inoperative or superfluous. State Bd. of Equalization v. Cheyenne 
Newspapers, Inc., 611 P.2d 805, 809 (Wyo. 1980). In construing the statute, our 
main objective is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. Moncrief v. 
Harvey, 816 P.2d 97, 105 (Wyo. 1991).

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   The statute we must interpret is 
W.S. 27-14-503(b) (1991) which provides in relevant part:

The right of compensation for an injury which occurs 
over a substantial period of time is barred unless a claim for benefits is filed 
within one (1) year after a diagnosis of injury is first communicated to the 
employee, or within three (3) years from the date of last injurious exposure to 
the condition causing the injury, whichever occurs last, excluding injury caused 
by ionizing radiation to which the three (3) year limitation does not apply. If 
death results from ionizing radiation within either of these periods, a claim 
shall be filed within one (1) year after the date of 
discovery.

This is the first time this 
court has been called upon to interpret this section of the 
statute.

[¶11]   We first examine the statute to 
ascertain whether it is ambiguous. The statute begins by stating that it applies 
to injuries which occur over a long period of time. It then sets out two time 
periods in which a claim must be brought or it will be barred. A claim must be 
filed within one year after a diagnosis of injury has been communicated to the 
employee or within three years of the date of last injurious exposure, whichever 
occurs last. The final portion of the sentence states that the three-year time 
period does not apply to injuries which are the result of ionizing radiation. 
Thus, the first time period specified for filing a claim for injuries from 
ionizing radiation is within one year of communication of the diagnosis to the 
employee. The language for the first time period of W.S. 27-14-503(b) is plain 
and unambiguous.

[¶12]  The first certified question asks 
whether W.S. 27-14-503(b) allows a claimant to bring an action alleging an 
injury caused by ionizing radiation at any time after the last injury from the 
radiation occurs. If a claimant could bring a claim at any time, then 
27-14-503(b) would be meaningless. Section 503(b) is a statute of limitations 
and imposes a time limit for the filing of claims which allege an injury from 
ionizing radiation. The statute provides that a claim is barred if it is not 
brought within one year after it is communicated to an employee or, if the 
employee has died, within one year of discovery of the injury. Therefore, a 
claim cannot be brought at any time after the last injury from ionizing 
radiation occurs, and the answer to the first certified question is 
"NO."

[¶13]   The language of the statute 
pertaining to the second certified question is ambiguous for two reasons. The 
first ambiguity results from the phrase "within either of these periods" which 
makes absolutely no sense in this context. The only periods it could be 
referring to are the preceding one and three-year period. However, as we pointed 
out, the three-year period does not apply to ionizing radiation injuries. The 
problem appears to have arisen out of several amendments to the statute. In 
1969, when the statute was first enacted, there were two filing periods 
applicable to occupational diseases in general. There were also two different 
time periods for ionizing radiation injuries. Furthermore, the "if death 
results" clause applied to all occupational diseases, not just ionizing 
radiation injuries. See 1969 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 200, § 9. In 1971, the statute 
was amended to eliminate the two separate filing periods for ionizing radiation 
injuries. 1971 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 195, § 7. And in 1975, the statute was 
amended to make the "if death results" clause applicable to ionizing radiation 
claims only. 1975 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 149, § 1. By amending the statute in a 
piecemeal fashion without changing the phrase "within either of these periods," 
we are left with a statute that is without question 
ambiguous.

[¶14]   The second ambiguity is the meaning 
of "discovery," which is not defined in the worker's compensation statutes. Mrs. 
Olheiser asserts that it means when a claimant learned the injury was 
compensable. According to Mrs. Olheiser, that occurs when a claimant learns of 
the connection between the injury and her husband's employment from competent 
medical authority. See Boyd v. Potlatch Corp., 117 Idaho 960, 793 P.2d 192 
(1990). Mrs. Olheiser claims that, at the earliest, she did not "discover" the 
connection until she read the article and, therefore, she filed her claim within 
the one-year period.

[¶15]   The Division claims that 
"discovery" means when a person knew of the connection or they had reason to 
know of it. The Division contends that when Mrs. Olheiser received the objection 
to her husband's claim on February 11, 1988, she had constructive notice of the 
connection. The Division contends a reasonable person would have investigated at 
that point and they would have discovered the possible connection. According to 
the Division's theory, Mrs. Olheiser had reason to know of the connection at 
that time; and if she had exercised due diligence, she would have learned of it 
then. Therefore, the statute began to run at that point, and her claim is now 
barred.

[¶16]   Since we find the meaning of 
"discovery" in W.S. 27-14-503(b) to be ambiguous, we look to extrinsic aids to 
assist us in determining its meaning. We begin by looking at our recent decision 
in Aanenson v. State ex rel. Wyo. Worker's Compensation Div., 842 P.2d 1077 
(Wyo. 1992). In that case we looked at the statute of limitations for injuries 
which result from a single occurrence, W.S. 27-12-503(a) (1977).1 The statute provided in 
part:

[no award of compensation is provided unless] an 
application or claim for award is filed * * * within one (1) year after the day 
on which the injury occurred or for 
injuries not readily apparent, within one (1) year after discovery of the injury 
by the employee.

(emphasis added). We held 
that an injury becomes compensable when a reasonable person, under the 
circumstances, would have understood the full extent and nature of their injury 
and that the injury was related to his or her employment. Id. at 1082. The 
statute of limitations begins to run when that date is fixed. 
Id.

[¶17]   We noted in Aanenson that our prior 
case law indicated that the date could be when the injury was diagnosed by 
competent medical authority, see Big Horn Coal Co. v. Wartensleben, 502 P.2d 187 
(Wyo. 1972); Baldwin v. Scullion, 50 Wyo. 508, 62 P.2d 531, 108 A.L.R. 304 
(1936), or the date could be when the injury occurred, see Claim of Grindle, 722 P.2d 166 (Wyo. 1986). Aanenson, at 1082.

[¶18]   As Aanenson and our prior cases 
make clear, the term "discovery" in 503(a) contains both subjective and 
objective elements. Obviously, if the injury is apparent and a person knows it 
is work related, then the time to file begins to run at that point. If, however, 
the injury is not readily apparent, then the time begins to run when a 
reasonable person, under those circumstances, would have decided an injury had 
occurred and discerned a connection between the injury and his 
employment.

[¶19]   This brings us to W.S. 
27-14-503(b), which applies to injuries which occur over a substantial period of 
time. Injuries covered by 503(b) are analogous to the single occurrence injuries 
which are "not readily apparent" covered by 503(a). Both sections cover injuries 
which are difficult to immediately discern, and the legislature addressed that 
difficulty by providing the time to file a claim as a time period from either 
the date of injury and the employment relationship or from the date of 
"discovery" of same. The only reasonable interpretation of the statute is that 
the legislature intended "discovery" to mean the same as applied to single 
injury occurrences.

[¶20]   We hold, therefore, that 
"discovery" in W.S. 27-14-503(b) occurs when a reasonable person, under the 
circumstances, knew or should have known that the deceased's injury was related 
to his or her employment. Aanenson, at 1082. The statute of limitations begins 
to run on that date. Id.

[¶21]   We are comfortable with the holding 
in this case, which is supported by law from other jurisdictions. For example, 
the definition of "discovery" is similar to the language found in Idaho's 
statute:

Limitation 
of action for ionizing radiation injuries. - No action or proceeding may be brought to recover 
for an ionizing radiation injury more than three (3) years after the person 
suffering such injury had knowledge or ought reasonably to have had knowledge of 
having suffered the injury and of the cause thereof, but in no event more than 
thirty (30) years from the date of the last occurrence to which the injury is 
attributed.

Idaho Code § 5-243 (1990). 
Several other states have parallel statutes: See Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 
2361(c) (1985); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513b (1983); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 77, § 602 
(1992); S.C. Code Ann. § 42-13-60 (1985); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 518 (1973 
& Cum. Supp. 1993). This definition of "discovery" is also used to determine 
when a tort cause of action accrues. See Mills v. Garlow, 768 P.2d 554, 555 
(Wyo. 1989).

[¶22]  The Division has suggested that a 
claimant is required to use due diligence in pursuing his claim. We agree. Due 
diligence is defined as:

Such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, 
as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable 
and prudent [person] under the particular circumstances; not measured by any 
absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special 
case.

Black's Law Dictionary (6th 
ed. 1990). Due diligence is implied in the phrase "a reasonable person under the 
circumstances." If a person fails to exercise due diligence in the pursuit of 
their claim, then they have failed to act as a reasonable person under the 
circumstances and their claim will be barred if the one-year time limit has 
expired.

[¶23]   Finally, there is some discussion 
in the briefs about the meaning of "diagnosis" in the first sentence of 503(b). 
By its terms the clause "[i]f death results" applies to this case because it is 
an action for death benefits. Thus the key to this claim was "discovery" not 
"diagnosis," which refers only to the employee. Of course, whether a diagnosis 
was communicated to an employee or to others may be a factor in determining if 
the claimant knew or a reasonable person would have known of the relationship 
between the injury and the employment. Nevertheless, we do not here address the 
meaning of "diagnosis" because it is unnecessary to the disposition of this 
case.

CONCLUSION

[¶24]   We answer the first certified 
question: "NO." Wyoming Statute 27-14-503(b) does not permit an ionization 
radiation action to be brought at any time, but unambiguously requires an action 
to be brought within a time period certain.

[¶25]   We answer the second question, as 
modified: "YES." An injury is discovered when a claimant has knowledge or when a 
reasonable person, under the circumstances, should have knowledge that the 
decedent's injuries were related to his or her employment. This necessarily 
implies a duty of due diligence on the part of the claimant in pursuing a 
claim.

[¶26]   Remanded to the district court for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Footnotes

1 Recodified as 27-14-503(a).