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

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Goedert ex rel. Wolfe v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div.1999 WY 156991 P.2d 1225Case Number: 98-230, 98-354, 98-235, 98-236Decided: 12/01/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming

Nicholas GOEDERT, By and Through his undersigned attorney, 
J. Stan

WOLFE, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

STATE of Wyoming ex rel. 
WYOMING

WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION 
DIVISION, Appellee (Objector).

 

Jacque Schutt, by and through her undersigned 
attorney, J. Stan Wolfe,

Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers'

Safety and Compensation Division, Appellee 
(Objector).

 

Roy P. Bechard, by and through his undersigned 
attorney, J. Stan Wolfe,

Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers'

Safety and Compensation Division, Appellee 
(Objector).

 

Wilma D. Newman; Richard D. Kistler; Bruce A. Fowler; 
Arthur J. Taylor;

Andrew Macke; Don Lara; and Jennifer Reynolds, 
Appellants (Petitioners),

 

v.

State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and 
Compensation

Division, Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

                    

Appeal from the District 
Courts, Cook and Campbell Counties, Dan R.

Price II, J.

 

Representing 
Appellants: J. Stan Wolfe of Law 
Firm of J. Stan Wolfe, Gillette, Wyoming.

 Representing Appellee: Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, 
Deputy Attorney General; Gerald W. Laska, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and 
Bernard P. Haggerty, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

 

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

 

    
MACY, Justice.

   
[¶1]      Appellants Nicholas Goedert, Jacque 
Schutt, Roy Bechard, Wilma Newman, Richard Kistler, Bruce Fowler, Arthur Taylor, 
Andrew Macke, Don Lara, and Jennifer Reynolds petitioned the district courts for 
review of various administrative decisions concerning the payment of attorney's 
fees and costs associated with their claims for worker's compensation benefits. 
The district courts certified the cases to the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

 

  [¶2]      We dismiss the 
cases.

 

                                     
ISSUES

 

  [¶3]      The appellants present the following 
issues for our review:

 

A. Did the Office of Administrative Hearings err in 
determining that counsel for the Appellants Jennifer Reynolds, Don Lara, Andrew 
Macke, and Roy P. Bechard was not entitled to the payment of postage expenses 
actually expended in representing the Appellants/Claimants in the contested case 
proceedings below?

 

B. Was there substantial evidence to support the 
Hearing Examiner's determination and denial of the payment of such postage 
expenses incurred by counsel for Jennifer Reynolds, Don Lara, Andrew Macke, and 
[Roy] Bechard in the contested case proceedings below?

 

C. Did the Office of Administrative Hearings err in 
denying the payment of attorney's fees at the rate of $90.00 per hour and in 
denying the payment of the actual postage expenses incurred by counsel for the 
Appellants Nicholas Goedert, Jacque Schutt, Wilma D. Newman, Richard D. Kistler, 
and Bruce A. Fowler below?

 

D. Was there substantial evidence to support the 
Hearing Examiner's denial of the payment of attorney's fees at the rate of 
$90.00 per hour and costs for postage expenses actually incurred by counsel in 
the cases of Nicholas Goedert, Jacque 
Schutt, Wilma D. Newman, Richard D. Kistler, and Bruce A. Fowler 
below?

 

E. Did the Office of the Medical Commission err in 
denying the payment of attorney's fees at the rate of $90.00 per hour for the 
Appellant Arthur J. Taylor below?

 

F. Was there substantial evidence to support the 
ruling by the Office of the Medical Commission denying the payment of attorney's 
fees at the rate of $90.00 per hour in the case of Arthur J. Taylor 
below?

 

                                     
FACTS

 

  [¶4]      We address ten consolidated cases in 
this decision. The appellants filed claims for worker's compensation benefits, 
and they were represented by Attorney J. Stan Wolfe in their respective 
cases.  After their cases concluded, 
Wolfe requested payment of his attorney's fees and his expenses that were 
associated with his representation of the appellants.

 

  [¶5]      In Goedert's case, Wolfe petitioned the 
Office of Administrative Hearings for payment of his attorney's fees at the rate 
of $90 per hour and his costs, which included actual postage expenses, incurred 
during his representation of the claimant. The Office of Administrative Hearings 
did not hold a hearing but simply entered an order which apparently approved 
payment of Wolfe's attorney's fees at the rate of $60 per hour and his costs but 
did not include actual postage expenses in the amount that was approved for 
costs.  Goedert filed a petition for 
review with the district court, and that court certified the case to the Wyoming 
Supreme Court. This Court remanded the case to the Office of Administrative 
Hearings and directed it to hold a hearing on Wolfe's request. A hearing 
examiner held a hearing and entered an order stating that, pursuant to the 
relevant administrative rules, attorney's fees in worker's compensation cases 
are paid at the rate of $60 per hour and that postage expenses cannot be 
reimbursed. The case was then returned to this Court.

 

  [¶6]      In the cases involving Schutt, Newman, 
Kistler, and Fowler, Wolfe filed petitions for payment of his attorney's fees at 
the rate of $90 per hour and his costs, which included actual postage 
expenses.  The hearing examiners 
allowed payment of Wolfe's attorney's fees at the rate of $60 per hour and his 
costs but did not allow payment of the postage expenses. Schutt, Newman, 
Kistler, and Fowler petitioned the district court for review of the hearing 
examiners' decisions, and that court certified the cases to the Wyoming Supreme 
Court.

  

  [¶7]      Wolfe applied for reimbursement of the 
postage expenses he incurred while he was representing Reynolds, Lara, Macke, 
and Bechard. The hearing examiner denied his application. Reynolds, Lara, Macke, 
and Bechard petitioned the district court for review of the hearing examiner's 
decisions, and that court certified the cases to the Wyoming Supreme 
Court.

 

  [¶8]      Wolfe petitioned the Medical Commission 
for payment of his attorney's fees at the rate of $90 per hour for his 
representation of Taylor. The Medical Commission ruled that the maximum hourly 
rate for representing a worker's compensation claimant was $60 per hour and 
ordered that Wolfe be paid at that rate. Taylor appealed to the district court, 
and that court certified the case to the Wyoming Supreme 
Court.

 

                                   
DISCUSSION

 

  [¶9]      The appellants present several issues 
that generally challenge the administrative rules which set the rate at $60 per 
hour for attorney's fees incurred during the representation of worker's 
compensation claimants and which prohibit reimbursing attorneys for their actual 
postage expenses. The appellants also suggest that the hearing examiners erred 
by refusing to deviate from the rates set out in the administrative rules. After 
a careful review of the procedural posture of these cases, we conclude that they 
are not properly before this Court.

 

  [¶10] 
  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-14-602(d) (LEXIS 1999) specifically commands the director of the Office of 
Administrative Hearings to set the hourly rate for attorney's fees incurred in 
the representation of worker's compensation claimants. That statute states in 
pertinent part:

 

(d) Upon request, the hearing examiner may appoint an 
attorney to represent the employee or claimants and may allow the appointed 
attorney a reasonable fee for his services at the conclusion of the proceeding. . . . Attorney fees allowed shall be at 
an hourly rate established by the director of the office of administrative 
hearings. . . .

 

Section 27-14-602(d). In 
accordance with the statute's mandate, the director promulgated a rule which 
established the rate for attorney's fees at $60 per hour and stated that postage 
expenses ordinarily would not be reimbursed. Rules for Contested Case Practice 
and Procedure Before the Office of Administrative Hearings, ch. 5, § 
3(a)(1997).  Similarly, the Medical 
Commission promulgated administrative rules setting the rate at $60 per hour for 
attorneys who represent worker's compensation claimants. Rules of Practice and 
Procedure Before the Medical Commission, ch. 6, § 5(1995).1

 

  [¶11] 
  Administrative rules and 
regulations have the force and effect of law, and agencies are, therefore, 
required to comply with their administrative rules. MB v. Laramie County 
Department of Family Services in the Interest of LB, 933 P.2d 1126, 1130 (Wyo. 
1997); Fullmer v. Wyoming Employment Security Commission, 858 P.2d 1122, 1123-24 (Wyo. 1993). Neither the 
Office of Administrative Hearings nor the Medical Commission could, therefore, 
disregard the administrative rules which established how attorneys repesenting 
worker's compensation claimants would be compensated. Indeed, if the agencies 
had failed to follow their rules, we would have been obliged to reverse their 
decisions. MB, 933 P.2d  at 1130. Because the agencies did not have the authority 
to disregard their rules, they could not grant Wolfe the relief he sought.  Similarly, this Court cannot remedy 
Wolfe's problem. These cases do not, therefore, present a justiciable 
controversy, and they must be dismissed. Bird v. Rozier, 948 P.2d 888, 893 (Wyo. 
1997); Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574, 578 (Wyo. 1974).

 

  [¶12] 
  There were several means 
available to Wolfe to pursue the relief he sought. He could have filed timely 
petitions for review after the agencies promulgated the rules which set the 
hourly rates for attorney's fees and delineated the costs that would be 
reimbursed.  See, e.g., State Farm 
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Wyoming Insurance Department, 793 P.2d 1008 (Wyo. 1990); Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. v. 
Environmental Quality Council, 590 P.2d 1324 (Wyo. 1979). If Wolfe had 
petitioned for review of the rule-making proceedings, the appellate courts could 
have reviewed the agencies' rule-making decisions to determine whether they were 
arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Tri-State 
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., 590 P.2d  at 1330. In conducting 
that review, the courts could have determined whether the agencies considered 
relevant factors in adopting the rules and whether the rules were rational. Id. 
Although Wolfe participated in some of the rule-making proceedings, he 
apparently did not petition for review of the agencies' rule-making 
decisions.

 

   [¶13] Wolfe also could have 
petitioned the Office of Administrative Hearings and the Medical Commission 
under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-106 (LEXIS 1999) to modify their rules. That 
statute states:

 

Any interested person may petition an agency 
requesting the promulgation, amendment or repeal of any rule and may accompany 
his petition with relevant data, views and arguments. Each agency may prescribe 
by rule the form of the petition and the procedure for its submission, 
consideration and disposition. Upon submission of a petition, the agency as soon 
as practicable either shall deny the petition in writing (stating its reasons 
for the denials) or initiate rulemaking proceedings in accordance with W.S. 
16-3-103. The action of the agency in denying a petition is final and not 
subject to review.

 

  Section 
16-3-106. He did not, however, proceed under that statute.

 

  [¶14] 
  In addition, Wolfe could 
have challenged the rules by instituting an independent action for a declaratory 
judgment. State Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Pacificorp, 872 P.2d 1163, 
1170 (Wyo. 1994). Declaratory judgment actions are available to challenge the 
validity of an agency's regulation and to secure a judicial determination of the 
meaning or constitutionality of the statute upon which the administrative action 
was based. State Board of Equalization v. Jackson Hole Ski Corporation, 737 P.2d 350, 354 (Wyo. 1987); Rocky Mountain Oil 
and Gas Association v. State, 645 P.2d 1163, 1168 (Wyo. 1982). Wolfe did not, 
however, pursue that remedy.

 

   [¶15] Simply stated, Wolfe did not 
proceed in an appropriate manner to challenge the Office of Administrative 
Hearings' and the Medical Commission's rules that pertained to compensating 
attorneys for representing claimants in worker's compensation cases. The 
agencies did not have the authority to ignore or modify their rules in the 
context of contested case proceedings. There is no remedy available to Wolfe 
from this Court.

 

  [¶16] 
  
Dismissed.

       

  

FOOTNOTES

1The 
Medical Commission's rules allow appointed attorneys to be reimbursed for all 
their necessary and reasonable costs. Rules of Practice and Procedure Before the 
Medical Commission, ch. 6, § 5 (1995). Apparently, the Medical Commission 
generally reimburses attorneys for their postage expenses under this 
provision.